(Part 2) Best christian living books according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 7,182 Reddit comments discussing the best christian living books. We ranked the 2,676 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 music books
Christian faith books
Christian leadership books
Christian stewardship books
Christian counseling books
Christian holidays books
Christian relationship books
Christian marriage books
Christian business books
Christian women issues books
Christian death & grief books
Christian families books
Christian inspirational books
Christian men issues books
Christian personal growth books
Christian social issue books
Christian spiritual growth books
Spiritual warfare books
Christian self help books

Top Reddit comments about Christian Living:

u/ChazEvansdale · 59 pointsr/minimalism

First off, think of Minimalism as a tool. A tool can be used for good or bad. Example: A hammer can build a house or bash in someone's head. So yeah minimalism can be bad.

Secondly, You can only change yourself. You can encourage others by showing them the way you live makes you happier, makes life simpler and easier, but it's up to them to adopt that lifestyle too.

Thirdly, Imposing any belief or lifestyle on someone is a slippery slope. If you push your boyfriend too hard he may start to dislike you to the point of ending the relationship. Remember he has feeling too, just because you've learned quickly to live a certain way doesn't mean he will.

Example 1: My extended family tried for 20 years to get my packrat mom to realize her house is full of junk. Oddly enough the thing that convinced her was a book written by a guy in a simple living community I lived in while traveling. Nothing we said I've those 20 years changed her mind and actually it just made her come up with more reasons justify the junk. Finally an outside perspective worked. After about a year of decluttering, tons of bags donated, we can finally see progress in my parents house, but they've got a ton more to do.

Example 2: Lastly, when I started becoming a minimalist 9 years ago my friends thought I was crazy. I tried to argue why, but it didn't work. In the end I gave up on arguing and decided to show them why. A year later I had a couple friends, who originally thought I was crazy, now defending why I'm a minimalist, because they see how much happier I am.

Edit: Since 3 people asked me here's a link to the book I mentioned:
The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical

u/Block_Helen · 34 pointsr/The_Donald

This is a great book about just that. A sociologist was interested in how quickly Christianity spread. He started out skeptical, but actually became a believer as he researched it.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Religious-Centuries/dp/0060677015

u/jasoncaspian · 29 pointsr/AskHistorians
  • I cannot comment specifically on all crucifixions throughout the Roman Empire, but I can talk about the one's done near Judea, Mesopotamia, Egypt and where present day Turkey and Syria are. Here, crucifixions were almost always public (I say "almost" simply to show that there could have been exceptions, but from every case and situation I've ever seen, it was always public)
  • Jesus' followers absolutely would have been allowed to stay and watch, however, they probably were afraid to. The crime the historical Jesus was probably executed for was declaring himself a king thereby making himself an enemy of the state. Likewise, his followers could have been viewed in a treasonous way similarly.
  • It's hard to say how many criminals could be crucified at one time. Most would be left up there for at least a week and sometime even longer. The largest mass number of crucifixions at one time that I've ever seen a record of was during the Slave Rebellions on the Roman Peninsula that ended around 71 BCE in which over 5,000 former slaves were crucified between Rome and Capua.
  • When I say "mass grave" I mean to refer to the idea that somewhere outside the city gates (this is true of several Roman cities) there is usually an area where the bodies of executed criminals were buried. However, many cities did not have such sites and instead, they left the bodies on the cross until they decomposed and were eaten by scavengers. John Dominic Crossan's “The Dogs Beneath the Cross,” chap. 6 in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography actually goes through this in detail and even says that perhaps wild dogs actually ate the bodies as we knew they typically did in other places. I think we have such a hard time understanding this because for us in today's society, even criminals get burials. Ehrman (as cited earlier) actually tries to explain this himself, saying:

    >Crucifixion was meant to be a public disincentive to engage in politically subversive activities, and the disincentive did not end with the pain and death— it continued on in the ravages worked on the corpse afterward.


    > Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 157). HarperCollins.

  • Please keep in mind we are discussing generalities. There is always a chance that Pilate could have allowed Jesus' body to be taken off the cross, it's just historically speaking, unlikely.
  • There probably isn't enough evidence to know if Jesus' execution was abnormal or normal to be honest. The Romans, although diligent in their writings, were not as concerned with writing about executions than writing about people of importance (remember, they didn't view Jesus as important, I am not saying he wasn't important). To quote Ehrman again, "It is unfortunate that we do not have from the ancient world any literary description of the process of crucifixion, so we are left guessing about the details of how it was carried out." [Ehrman pp 158]. However, it would not seem to be far fetched from our other limited examples that have survived. A complete study of Roman crucifixtion can be found in Crucifixion (Facets) by Martin Hengel.
  • This last question is an interesting one. Had the crime been reported during any other week of the year, it would have been unusual for a Rabbi with only a few followers (it's estimated by Rodney Stark, a sociologist, who wrote The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries that he likely had 20-30 devote followers at the time of his execution) he probably would not have been executed. Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea typically lived in Caesarea, the Roman Capital of the region. He only stayed in Jerusalem during the week of Passover when religious insurrection was likely to occur. Because of this, Pilate had to keep order, so if it was being reported to him that a man was raising a rebellion against Rome and declaring himself king, yes, he could easily be executed for this for his "crimes against the state."
u/littlebugs · 23 pointsr/Parenting

I've read a lot of parenting books and learned a lot of cool techniques and tricks for helping my kids. A parenting class, if you do the research and find someone who makes a lot of sense to you, is just a faster way of learning new tricks, and it sounds like you're looking for good ideas and fast. The class I linked you to in my other comment is one I'd love to take myself and I have worked with children for over fifteen years.

But if you are interested in the book route, look at your local library for How to Talk So Kids Will Listen, Simplicity Parenting, or Love and Logic, or anything by those authors.

I can guarantee you that at least one of my grandmas would've loved a parenting class, and the other probably could've used one.

u/MagicOtter · 21 pointsr/Catholicism

Former fedora atheist here. For a long time, I felt like I belonged to the "skeptical, rational, atheist" tribe. But at one point I became disillusioned with the crowd, and realized that I no longer want to be part of it. I started looking for alternatives, groups I'd want to be a part of, and I settled upon Catholicism. I first approached it from a purely secular perspective, as a serious and reliable institution. But I ended up accepting the faith and God as well.

Here's my progression, what drew me in more and more:

I. The intellectual life. I was always fascinated by science. It was interactions with promoters of dishonest creationism (usually evangelicals) that originally pushed me towards rejecting religion and to become a militant atheist.

Then I read a book that changed how I view the relation between Church and science: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. I now follow @catholiclab and similar profiles on Twitter, which post interesting facts about Catholic scientists. It's simply astounding how this information is completely absent from contemporary popular culture.

II. Just on an emotional level, feeling "closer" to Catholics. It helped that my family is Catholic. On YouTube, I've watched many videos by Bishop Robert Barron, Fr. Mike. They are very lucid and reasonable in addressing contemporary issues. I'm sure there are many others.

I'm also reading biographies of martyrs who died persecuted in modernity by revolutionary ideologies. My TODO reading list includes books by Thomas Merton, Joseph Ratzinger, and the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola.

III. The aesthetics. I'm subscribed on Twitter to profiles like @Christian8Pics which post a lot of inspiring imagery. Familiarity breeds liking. I also listen to music on YouTube: liturgy, Medieval chants, Mozart's Requiem, Byzantine chants (usually Eastern Orthodox).

All these sideways might seem very strange to a Catholic convert or someone raised Catholic who stayed Catholic. But if someone is immersed in a materialistic, mechanistic and atheistic worldview, there's no available grammar or impulse to even take God or the life of the Church into consideration.

IV. Actually knowing what theism is all about. The "god" dismissed by popular atheist debaters is a caricature of God as understood by classical theism and the actual tradition of the Church. So is the "god" argued for by Intelligent Design proponents, biblical literalists, fundamentalists.

I read 2 books by Edward Feser (Catholic) and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) to finally become comfortable with this very simple point. The books I read are, in order:

By Edward Feser:

  • The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

  • Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)

    By David Bentley Hart:

  • Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies

  • [The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss] (https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300209355)

    Each author has his own biases, which might trip the reader up at times (Hart is biased against evolutionary psychology for some reason). But these books produced in me a fresh view of where to begin seeking for God. They gave me the confidence to proceed.

    Atheism always addresses "god" as if it's simply one entity among others, part of the natural world, for which one ought to find physical traces and then one simply "believes in the existence of god" (much like you'd believe there's a car parked outside your house, once you look out the window and observe it's there -- meaning it could just as well NOT be there).

    Creationists just muddy the waters with "god of the gaps" and "Paley's watch" style theories, which simply postulate "god" as an explanation for why this or that aspect of the natural world is a certain way, a tinkerer god which molds the physical world into shape, or which created it at some point in the past.

    This has nothing to do with how God is presented by the authors I quoted, and they go to great lengths to make this point.

    I started by understanding that there needs to be an ultimate answer to certain metaphysical questions which, by definition, can't have a physical answer (e.g. "why does there exist a physical world in the first place?"). There's a qualitative difference between physical questions and metaphysical ones, and the gap simply can't be breached by adding more layers of physicality. Hart makes this point very well (he differentiates between the Demiurge that deists, atheists and creationists discuss, and God as the "necessary being" of classical theism).

    The ultimate metaphysical cause is "necessary" because it's simply a necessity for the physical world to have a non-physical cause which keeps it in existence. If the only thing that existed was a quantum field that didn't produce any particles, or a single proton that always existed and will always exist, the "necessity" would be exactly the same. Nothing would change even if it turned out our Universe is part of a Multiverse.

    Then, through reasoning, one can deduce certain characteristics of this ultimate answer, which ends up forming the classical theistic picture of God as a "necessary being" which continuously creates every aspect of the physical universe. Feser is very good at explaining this part and especially at underlining how tentative and feeble our understanding of the unfathomable is. He also explains why it has to be a "being" rather than an unknown impersonal cause. It's a humbling experience.

    But as Bishop Robert Barron stated in his interview on the Rubin Report, philosophy only takes you halfway there. Looking back, the existence of God simply makes sense and is a no-brainer. Faith doesn't have to do with "accepting that God exists with no evidence". Faith is about what you do once you realize that the existence of God is an inescapable conclusion of rational thought. What do you do once you realize that He exists and is conscious of us? You have to go beyond the impersonal, and engage, interact. Here's where prayer, the liturgical life and spiritual exercises come into play.

    Unlike conversion, faith isn't a one-time historical event, it's a daily effort on one's part to drive one's thoughts towards the infinite and the ultimate cause of everything. This requires individual effort, but it is not an individual venture. One has the entire tradition and life of the Church to guide you: selfless persons who dedicated their lives to help people like you and me.

    Here's how Feser, in his "Last Superstition" book, describes the various ways of conceiving of God:

    >To understand what serious religious thinkers do believe, we might usefully distinguish five gradations in one’s conception of God:

    >1. God is literally an old man with a white beard, a kind if stern wizard-like being with very human thoughts and motivations who lives in a place called Heaven, which is like the places we know except for being very far away and impossible to get to except through magical means.

    >2. God doesn’t really have a bodily form, and his thoughts and motivations are in many respects very different from ours. He is an immaterial object or substance which has existed forever, and (perhaps) pervades all space. Still, he is, somehow, a person like we are, only vastly more intelligent, powerful, and virtuous, and in particular without our physical and moral limitations. He made the world the way a carpenter builds a house, as an independent object that would carry on even if he were to “go away” from it, but he nevertheless may decide to intervene in its operations from time to time.

    >3. God is not an object or substance alongside other objects or substances in the world; rather, He is pure being or existence itself, utterly distinct from the world of time, space, and things, underlying and maintaining them in being at every moment, and apart from whose ongoing conserving action they would be instantly annihilated. The world is not an independent object in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when he plays and vanishes the moment he stops. None of the concepts we apply to things in the world, including to ourselves, apply to God in anything but an analogous sense. Hence, for example, we may say that God is “personal” insofar as He is not less than a person, the way an animal is less than a person. But God is not literally “a person” in the sense of being one individual thing among others who reasons, chooses, has moral obligations, etc. Such concepts make no sense when literally applied to God.

    >4. God as understood by someone who has had a mystical experience of the sort Aquinas had.

    >5. God as Aquinas knows Him now, i.e. as known in the beatific vision attained by the blessed after death.

    What I've been talking about is at #3. Atheists and creationists are debating #1 and #2. #4 is a gift to be accorded by grace, and is what people strive for in their spiritual life. #5 is the ultimate goal of the Christian life.
u/darthrevan · 20 pointsr/newjersey

I'm undecided on wage increases, but we do need to be careful of logical fallacies here.

The first is the appeal to motive fallacy. The identity of who is funding the ad is irrelevant to deciding the truthfulness their claim. We need to look at the issue itself and see what the merits are on either side, regardless of who is presenting what side, because as Jamie Whyte put it in Crimes Against Logic:

>It is perfectly possible to have some interest in holding or expressing an opinion and for that opinion to be true.

The second is the Card & Kreuger example you cited. We have to be careful of making a hasty generalization. The Card & Kreuger findings by no means settled the issue. In fact, the very next section to the page you linked, which discusses the responses to that study, begins:

>In subsequent research, David Neumark and William Wascher attempted to verify Card and Krueger's results by using administrative payroll records from a sample of large fast food restaurant chains in order to verify employment. They found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment.

So the effect of minimum wage increases on employment is still not definitively known, at least based on what I can gather from that Wiki page.

TL;DR: This issue, like most, is much more complicated than it may seem at first and we need to look at it carefully without resorting to hasty and fallacious thinking.

u/sad_State_of_Affairs · 20 pointsr/greatawakening

Nice idea, but Christ was a real person, documented in both religious and secular documents.

What follows is not meant to be disrespectful, but I think you are missing the entire point of what the Christian Faith is.

You cannot overlook the evidence.

Chris was actually killed and rose from the dead seen by over 500 witnesses

If you look at the evidence and decide that it is worth looking at what Jesus actually stood for.

There are actually over 300 "Q Type" prophecies in the old testament, that are all fufilled in a single man, Jesus Christ. These are prophecies that took place over 400 years before he came.

If nothing else, take a look at the evidence in light of "Q type" prophecy.

Two good books are


The case for Christ

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863?aaxitk=9l74.ycRWveaIQm-t.ZSYw&pd_rd_i=0310345863&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=3534726502&pd_rd_wg=81HhE&pf_rd_r=7FYJ4V7SAWEVC6JM4FA7&pf_rd_s=desktop-sx-top-slot&pf_rd_t=301&pd_rd_w=eRa1R&pf_rd_i=the+case+for+christ&pd_rd_r=ff665252-4ebd-4d59-b4cf-4d52f112cbe2&hsa_cr_id=7480256250101

Evidence that demands a verdict.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1401676707?aaxitk=BXAaSaaijsgYqtj3gEbPXw&pd_rd_i=1401676707&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=3534726502&pd_rd_wg=jYd2I&pf_rd_r=93P85JRNR7JSJ5EMWG2M&pf_rd_s=desktop-sx-top-slot&pf_rd_t=301&pd_rd_w=7nLcY&pf_rd_i=Evidence+that+demands+a+verdict&pd_rd_r=e38ece30-f389-4c68-8dcb-ff7abce12a76&hsa_cr_id=5187726210201



As far as your math equation of "we do this and we get that. The bible teaches that salvation is a GIFT' and you cannot do anything to earn it. You could argue that you have to believe, and that is correct, but that is all you can do. In fact the teachings of the bible tell warn against trying to get back
into that mindset.


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.


I am not one to argue that you need to believe the way I believe, but I do see that you are teaching (maybe a strong word) something very different than that the documents that uphold the entire christian faith represent.

Christ also taught us that this world is not our world.

He also taught us that our struggles are not flesh and blood but really against good and evil. (That is what we are seeing)

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The real gospel is very simple and it is a secret.

We are all sinners (everyone)

The penalty for sin is death.

Christ died once for all

He rose again defeating death

He sent his Holy Spirit here to help us

He does not force himself on anyone.

It is impossible to believe in Him without faith. You can argue facts until you are blue in the face, but you will never be able to prove it. Plenty of circumstantial evidence though.

u/[deleted] · 19 pointsr/Christianity

A great way to find out more about it: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

u/Searchery · 19 pointsr/Christianity

Rodney Stark's book "The Rise of Christianity" suggests a few ways in which Christian morality was superior to pagan morality:

  1. Prohibition of infanticide. Under Roman law, the father had the right to abandon the child to the elements at birth–resulting either in death, or the child being taken in by baby-farmers who would raise the child to be a slave. Girls disproportionately were the victims of this. And the mothers had no say. Christianity condemned this as murder.
  2. End to forced abortion. In ancient Rome, abortion was not a woman's "right to choose", it was a man's – a woman's husband or father had the legal right to compel her to have an abortion, and women often died in the process. By outlawing abortion, Christianity brought an end to forced abortion of women.
  3. Like many cultures, ancient Roman culture had strong sexual double standards – women were expected to be chaste, men were not subject to the same expectations. Christianity couldn't completely eliminate these double standards, but by insisting that men and women were subject to equal obligations of chastity, managed to make some dent in them. By contrast, the pagan religions were mostly silent on sexual morality
  4. Pagans would frequently abandon those sick with contagious diseases out of fear of catching it themselves. Christians would selflessly nurse the sick, even though by doing so they risked succumbing to the disease themselves. Many people survived contagious diseases due to nursing by Christians, and many pagans ended up converting as a result. Christian morality said there was an obligation to care for the sick, even at risk to one's own life – pagan morality largely didn't
u/SonOfShem · 19 pointsr/TrueChristian

The Case for Christ (the [book][1], although the [film][2] adaptation wasn't horrible) and Cold Case Christianity would probably be good reads for you.

Case for Christ was written by an investigative journalist and legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. It details his transition from Atheism to Christianity, and how his attempt to debunk Christianity lead to him coming to Christ.

Cold Case Christianity was written by a detective who solved a number of high-profile cold cases. He has a similar story, as his book details his conversion from Atheism to Christianity through the use of cold-case investigation techniques.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863/

[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6113488/

u/CooCooCoco · 18 pointsr/Parenting

The book Love and Logic is great for this. Stop being his doormat OP. It's bad for you and it will have consequences for him when he's older. He needs to know it's unacceptable to treat people this way and you need to stop shielding him from the consequences of behaving like a shithead.

u/BellaLou324 · 18 pointsr/beyondthebump

Ok, so my son went through this exact same thing. The dog water is actually what we used to introduce the firm "no means no" concept, as well as time out.

Our son was also about 12-13 months when he started playing with the dog water. Same thing- he just loves putting his foot in it! He would do the same grin at us while hovering his foot over the water.

We tried redirection at first, but it became a game, so we resorted to time out. We got what is, in my opinion, the best time out chair for toddlers. I love this chair because you can(and should) remove the toys, and you can strap him in. We put the chair in a corner and that's just where it always is. When he's in time out, we call it time out, when he's just playing, we call it his thinking chair.

So here's what you do:

Next time he touches the water, tell him "No touching the dog water! That is yucky! If you touch the dog water again you will have a time out."

When he touches it again: "uh-oh! You touched the dog water! Now you have to have a time out..." (Say this in a surprised/sympathetic tone- like "it's to bad you did that... Sucks to be you" sort of way.)

Pick him up or wake him to the chair, put him in, strap him in and say "you're having a time out for touching the dog water."

Walk away for one minute.

He may think it is fun at first, but will then scream bloody murder most likely. Ignore this. Make NO eye contact!

After one minute, walk back.

"You were in time out for touching the dog water. You may not touch the dog water, that's yucky. Please say sorry and give me a hug." (He obviously didn't say sorry at first, but he did give the best hugs.)

Now, engage him with something else, play as if nothing happened. It's really important not to hold a grudge after a time out. Don't dwell on it. If he heads back to the dog water, you can remind him "Don't touch the dog water or you will have to have another time out".

When he touches it again, because he totally will, repeat the time out. "Uh-oh! You touched the dog water, now you have to have a time out..." Etc etc.

The key is to be extremely consistent with this. If it's a new day or occasion, I will give my son a warning of "if you do that again you will get a time out" but if it's the same day, anytime after the initial second chance is an immediate time out.

My son did it about 5 times in a row the first day, then he stopped. Then next day he did it a few times, and here and there over the next few days. This is totally normal and should be expected as he is testing boundaries and seeing how consistent you will really be. My son is 18 months now and I just have to remind him that he will get a time out if he chooses to touch the dog water, and he usually chooses not to.

The most important part of this is to make it clear that it is his choice to do something that lands him in time out. It's not you deciding he gets a time out, it's just that time outs are the consequence and his actions cause it. That's why you have a sympathetic tone when putting him in time out.

This is basically a really basic intro to Love and Logic discipline. In a nutshell you make sure the consequence is logical, and that the child is in total control of the choices they make (and therefore the consequences). You also never show animosity toward a misbehaving toddler, but empathy. It works wonders on toddlers, I have used it on many kids during my career as a nanny. If you have a chance to read it, I would highly suggest [Parenting With Love And Logic] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1576839540/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_xRGIwbN38WQEH) or Love and Logic Magic for Early Childhood.
I know it sounds kind of hippy-granola but I swear to you it is the best, most intuitive discipline system I have ever used.

Good luck!

u/vacuous_comment · 18 pointsr/atheism

Hey look, the outsider test of faith.

u/Chelle-Dalena · 16 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity
  1. Nope. Not rude or disrespectful.
  2. http://www.orthodoxiya.fm/ (If you speak Arabic, here is an Orthodox on-line radio station. If not- you'll be just as lost as I am with this! However, if you like chants, there is some good chanting to be found here. If you prefer or know English better, then this might be more up your alley: Ancient Faith Radio (music/chanting, podcasts, blogs)

    Well, I'll just share books and links with you that I just shared to someone else on another thread. I don't know how useful some of them will be for you, since you don't have a Christian background, but there they are anyway. Regarding specific differences between Copts, Armenians, Old Believer, and Eastern Orthodox, I don't know of any books that specifically address the differences (but Ethiopians are Copts and Greeks/Russians/Antioch are all Eastern Orthodox). ;)

    The Orthodox Faith by Thomas Hopko (It's all on-line- so no need to buy anything here.)

    Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom (Wonderful resource for anyone.)

    On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius (Catholics of all stripes should approve of this, but this is definitely something the East looks at more frequently in my observation. Also all on-line.)

    The Meaning of Icons by Vladimir Lossky (Icons are often overlooked in book recommendations on Orthodox Christianity. It's a shame. It's one of the most fascinating subjects.)

    On Acquisition of the Holy Spirit by St. Seraphim of Sarov (Even the pope has recognized him as a saint. This is a wonderful and deceptively simple (i.e. heavy) read. This is also all on-line. There are also six you-tube videos for this so you can just listen: https://youtu.be/pBynRA0wNg8 )

    Also, I don't think this has much to do with theology, but I really liked them:

    The Way of a Pilgrim (I recommend this book to everyone. Always.)

    How to Live a Holy Life by Gregory Postnikov (This is a small book. It's deceptively simple. The doing of what's in it is more difficult.)

  1. For an Orthodox view, I highly recommend this podcast series on the bible to you. Dr. Constantinou of the University of San Diego essentially covers what she would in one of her survey courses. This goes in-depth on the topics of scripture (old and new). It truly starts with the second podcast (Inspiration and Inerrancy) and moves on to cover oral tradition, bible manuscripts, the septuagint, the canon, translations and versions, patristic interpretation, the school of Alexandria, the school of Antioch, and the Latin fathers in other podcasts. Search the Scriptures: Introduction to the Bible (Lesson 2)
u/Ibrey · 15 pointsr/Catholicism

I agree, don't do that. The Bible is not meant to be read like a novel.

Do read:

u/GCNJustin · 13 pointsr/OpenChristian

Oh hey, that's me! :)

I just want to say that I think all the books posted so far are worth a read. I second the recommendation of Vines' and Brownson's books for their thoughtful, in-depth biblical analysis from folks who love the Bible and have a very high view of Scripture. (They're also great people.) And Jeff Chu's book is a fascinating look at the different ways people wrestle with their faith and sexuality. (He's also great people.)

Since I lurk here, I guess I should say something about my own book, huh?

Torn is aimed squarely at an evangelical audience, especially for those who aren't yet affirming; it walks them through the human side of the issue, what it's like to grow up gay and evangelical, why people are gay, where the church has missed the mark, etc. It also gets into the biblical questions (again, with a high view of Scripture) though that's not the sole focus of the book like it is with Vines and Brownson. It's designed to be more accessible for folks who haven't gone very deep on this yet, to help them understand why it matters so much and what they can do about it. I like to think it complements the other books well.

u/encouragethestorm · 12 pointsr/DebateReligion

I actually just had this discussion last week. If you're at all interested I recommend that you go check it out.

Here's the first post:

>No, it's because this question has been asked so many times before. A standard Catholic answer would be the following:

>God is not the one who punishes. God predestines each of us to heaven and does whatever is in his power (thereby investing himself in us) to enable us to reach this state of divinity in which our humanity is fulfilled.

>One of the central Christian theses is the dogma that ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, that God is love. Heaven is completed union with God, which is to say, the state in which one's being is overwhelmed by the pouring out of love and the receiving of love. This is what we are all predestined towards, but it must also be remembered that love must be a free choice: in order to love it must also be possible not to love, and those who choose not to love exclude themselves from the possibility of attaining union with God.

>Hell in our conception is thus not a creation of God but rather the necessary consequence of the free choice not to love. Those who live without love create their own hell within themselves.

>If you have any further interest in the subject I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.

u/internetiseverywhere · 12 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

>but I feel like I can't make an intellectually honest assent to the faith until I can tell the full story of how I got to Orthodoxy.

Yeah, this is where you're going wrong. Craft the narrative later -- there is work to be done.

Pick up Beginning to Pray by (Metropolitan) Anthony Bloom. The first chapter should be a good punch in the gut.

You're as far as you need to go right now intellectually. But this isn't a thought experiment. You won't have any intellectual certitude about our risen Lord until you meet Him.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to save your soul and win eternal life, arise from your lethargy, make the sign of the Cross and say:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Faith comes not through pondering but through action. Not words and speculation but experience teaches us what God is. To let in fresh air we have to open a window; to get tanned we must go out into the sunshine. Achieving faith is no different; we never reach a goal by just sitting in comfort and waiting, say the holy Fathers. Let the Prodigal Son be our example. He "arose and came" (Luke 15:20)

-Way of the Ascetics

u/Vystril · 11 pointsr/religion

>I'd love to do the Vedas or the Tripiṭaka, but from what I'm reading, these are almost impossible to understand without the formal training and would take more than a year to complete (if you can even find English translations of them).


The Tripitaka actually has a lot of very accessible parts -- reading the entire thing would be a massive undertaking (this would be thousands and thousands of pages), but the Majjhima Nikaya (the middle length discourses of the Buddha) and the Digha Nikaya (the long length discourses of the Buddha) are IMO extremely accessible and cover most of the non-Mahayana Buddhist teachings. Both come with very good forwards which serve as a good introduction for understanding the rest of the text.

For Mahayana Buddhism, there are a number of sutras translated, but probably the most foundational/important would be the Bodhicharyavatara (the way of the Bodhisattvas) which is amazing, but really needs more unpacking to fully appreciate. For that I'd recommend The Nectar of Manjushri's Speech which is an excellent and detailed commentary on it.

u/LeonceDeByzance · 11 pointsr/Christianity

I was a nonbeliever. I'm now a Catholic theologian. The best thing on the market right now that everyone should read is David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Most of the atheists and Christians I meet today don't really know what they mean by the word 'God.' A lot of classical theism has been lost to modernity. Hart gets things squared away with what we mean by the word 'God.' It's immensely helpful.

u/weeglos · 10 pointsr/Christianity

The Catholic Church teaches that all religions have some level of Truth to them (capital T). God reveals himself to different peoples in different ways, the Catholics just think they're "more right" than the rest.

Denominations that say that could be right, they could be wrong. In the end, everyone has to decide their own way.

Personally, my view on heaven and hell are pretty close to what C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce - Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever - all people choose where they will wind up, either with God or apart from Him. Since God is love, then being apart from him for all eternity would be hell. Each person must choose, and if you choose not to believe, well, why would you want to spend eternity with something you don't believe exists?

u/monkey_sage · 10 pointsr/simpleliving

The Way of the Bodhisattva

I find this book is a brilliant thing to start my day with. It sets my motivation, it frames the way I want to view my day going forward, it reminds me of the person I want to be.

u/futilehabit · 10 pointsr/Christianity
u/Parivill501 · 9 pointsr/Catholicism

> Hans Urs Von Balthasar taught the possibility of universal salvation

The book to read is Dare We Hope that All Men Be saved by von Balthasar. He doesn't go so far as to say with certitude universalism, but he concludes that we may be "hopeful universalists" given the reading of Scripture and various, Pre-Augustinian church fathers.

u/--throwaway · 9 pointsr/todayilearned

The book that truly explains what the Bible is literally saying in a hilarious manner is called "God Is Disappointed In You"

It describes the guards thinking that the king was "taking one of his notoriously long shits"

u/rainer511 · 9 pointsr/Christianity

An introduction to Christian doctrine and what Christians believe is completely different than an introduction to the Bible.

For a free, online, scholarly introduction to the Bible I suggest OpenYale's courses on the New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures available here. Both Christine Hayes and Dale B. Martin are excellent. Biblical Literacy by Timothy Beal is an excellent accessible and mostly moderate[1] introduction to the the Bible for someone who's never read it before.

As far as both doctrine and the basis for doctrine go, that'll differ drastically from denomination to denomination. Most Protestant denominations claim that they believe in "sola scriptura" or "scripture alone", but perhaps the biggest blow to this statement may be the fact that you can't read the Bible and instantly divine everything there is to know about Protestants. Understanding the history of Protestantism is necessary. Even within the realm of Protestantism you'll find a diverse spectrum of beliefs. I personally have more in common theologically with some Muslims than I do with fundamentalist Protestant Christians.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions both explicitly state the importance of the church and church tradition, and so simply "understanding the Bible" won't get you very far there.

I'm tempted to offer Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright or the famous Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, but I cannot overstate the fact that even given their wide acceptance among the vast spectrum of Christian traditions, they are speaking out of a very particular perspective (they're both Anglican). A fair question, asked by Lamin Sanneh, is, "Whose religion is Christianity?" There are completely separate articulations of Christianity that have nothing to do with the Western culture it is so much associated with today. In his book he explores Christianity beyond the west. C.S. Song's book Jesus, the Crucified People: The Cross in the Lotus World covers specifically ways in which Christianity has risen across Asia.

I've got to run, but last I want to suggest Houston Smith's The World's Religions. He does a great job of highlighting the best of each of the world's major religious traditions.

__

[1] When people say "moderate" they don't mean "I believe in it moderately" but rather "In the spectrum from conservative to liberal interpretations of the Bible I fall somewhere in the middle".

u/Bakeshot · 8 pointsr/Christianity

Honestly, C.S. Lewis does a really great job of answering your question, via fictional narrative, in The Great Divorce.

It's a super short, very entertaining read that is probably communicated much more elegantly than anything you will get here. Seriously, I'm a very lazy reader, and I finished the thing in two sittings, no problem.

Edit: fixed the link!

u/NoMoreIllusions · 8 pointsr/exmormon

I think that if she can learn to critically examine her own thinking and beliefs, and understand how and why people come to believe what they believe, that this will definitely be more effective than addressing just the factual problems.

Here are some book recommendations that I think can accomplish this, if she's willing to read them:

Why We Believe What We Believe - Newburg and Waldman
Mistakes Were Made - But Not By Me - Tavris and Aronson
The Outsider Test for Faith - John Loftus

I have a section on this in a PDF I recently wrote: Examining Church Claims

But take your time; pushing things will only create more resistance.

Good luck!

u/19842017 · 8 pointsr/pics

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Here is a video that argues about the meaning of this passage.

Some people point to Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by God as a sign He condemns homosexuality. Here is a another video with the mildly annoying bald guy arguing the meaning of those stories.

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

I basically believe that the modern bible as a few "minor" translation errors where passages that are talking about pagan temple prostitution, Roman male pedophilc sex slave relationships, and male permeability not under a monogamous marriage. I'm gay and christian and I don't see why I can't marry a man later in my life (other then that my family would disprove of it immensely since they don't hold my same views).

A decent book on this subject is Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.

u/Naugrith · 8 pointsr/Christianity

Not all Churches are intolerant. There are many which are welcoming of all, including LGBT. Please look to attend one of these, so that you can experience the joy of being welcomed into Christ's family, and supported by those who love you. To find an affirming church in your area you can use this Church finder or this one.

If you are interested in reading more about the scriptural affirmation of Gay relationships then you can read Justin Lee's essay here, buy his book, or watch Matthew Vines' youtube video, either his short summary or his longer talk.

Read the scriptures, ask for advice from others (see /r/GayChristians and /r/OpenChristian), pray and meditate on Christ's love and His overwhelming desire to give you abundant and everlasting life. Always be careful to avoid the toxic words of hate and fear from others. People will always fear what they don't understand. But Christ is love and perfect love casts out fear.

u/mistiklest · 7 pointsr/Christianity

As we pray them over and over, we make their words our own, and we shape our minds and hearts to their pattern.

Also, in the Lukan account, we are explicitly told to say the Lord's Prayer.

If I might recommend a book, check out Beginning to Pray by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom.

u/cosmicservant · 7 pointsr/TrueChristian
  • Heaven. Realizing the materialness and earthliness of heaven has given me great endurance against sin. This book called Heaven by Randy Alcorn is the most influential book I've ever read aside from the Bible [amazon.com]

  • Humility. Realizing Humility as the backdrop to all other Christian virtues and letting the Holy Spirit cultivate it within us is one of the strongest defenses we can mount against sin and towards becoming like Christ. Absolutely simple book on Humility by Andrew Murray [amazon.com]
    >Humility is simply acknowledging the truth of his position as creature and yielding to God his place - Andrew Murray

    When we know our true position according to God, sin can not stand a chance to our new creation [biblehub.com]

    See you on NewEarth friend
u/Elite4ChampScarlet · 7 pointsr/askgaybros
  1. God loves you unconditionally and gives more grace than we could ever deserve.
  2. You aren't alone. I felt this exact way when I found out I was attracted to guys when I first started college.
  3. Don't give into pressure to choose one side or the other right away or even soon. This is a process of learning and growth and it probably sucks right now, but lean into the tension. Coming out / being 100% confident of your sexuality really soon is something that is, in my opinion, overhyped. Take your time.
  4. I don't know how much research you have done yet, but I would recuse yourself from your currently held position and take a stance of neutrality. It's important as a Christian to figure out why you believe what you believe. This can be hard to do, but see what the Side A (Affirming) crowd's arguments and experiences are. Take notes. Understand why they genuinely believe that they are not acting against God. See how and why they counter their opponents' arguments. Once you have fully done that (and by fully I mean take your time and do it for a few months), then look up the non-affirming (Side B, Y, and X) positions and do the same. Even if this doesn't help you come to a conclusion right away, this still is a healthy practice of understanding the why behind the what.
  5. This process of testing the foundations of your beliefs is/should probably extend to issues beyond LGBT inclusion in the church. One main pillar behind any LGBT/church argument is a stance on if Scripture is inerrant or not / what does it mean for something to be "inspired by God" / Should we hold to the same values as people 2,000 years ago (we've already expanded / moved on some from that)?
  6. Remember to take breaks from this. Be diligent, but don't let this pursuit of the truth consume you.
  7. Find non-judgmental friends who won't try to preach at you and can support you in your time of discernment and beyond.

    If you would like to PM me and ask more questions, I'm always happy to help people who were where I was 4 years ago.

    ​

    Here are a few good Affirming (A) resources to start out with:

    Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-VS-Christians Debate by Justin Lee (A)

    God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines (A)

    Modern Kinship by David and Constantino Khalaf (A)

    Blue Babies Pink by Brett Trapp / B.T. Harmann (A)

    Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson (A)

    Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation by Dale Martin (A)

    Risking Grace, Loving Our Gay Family and Friends Like Jesus by Dave Jackson (A)

    ​

    I'm compiling a list of other good resources / bad ones (from all perspectives, not just ones I disagree with), so let me know if you're looking for something more specific.
u/efrique · 7 pointsr/atheism

> tell me all of the reasons why the bible is flawed

That's rather a tall order. There are many perspectives from which it is flawed, and within many of those, a great many problems.

Are you after things like contradictions? Then see this question in the FAQ

Are you after finding out how the New Testament was altered again and again, and why? Then you may want to try to get the book Misquoting Jesus

Are you interested in common mistaken claims about and hidden contradictions in the New Testament? Maybe you'd enjoy Jesus, Interrupted

Are you interested in finding out which parts of the new testament were written by people claiming to be someone else? Then try Forged

Are you interested in whether there's solid evidence Jesus existed at all? Then try Nailed

Are you interested in refuations of many Christian ideas by a bunch of different authors? Then try The Christian Delusion

and so on and so on...

> I also plan on telling my family about my new found Athiesm soon so, any advice in that regards would be greatly appreciated.

Please read the advice in the FAQ. This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

---

> why Athiesm is your preferred route

That's atheism (small a, e before i). It's not a choice, any more than I chose not to believe in leprechauns or Santa or flying monkeys. At some point I found I didn't have belief in these propositions. Discovering there weren't any gods I believed in made me without-god-belief. That's literally a-theism.

u/bezjones · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

I am another Christian who has read it. I know many others who have read it and have come to be more understanding of the atheistic viewpoint. I would also recommend it. :-)

I would also recommend for basic understanding of the Christian viewpoint:

u/love_unknown · 7 pointsr/DebateReligion

I have a couple of things to say. Nothing philosophical, really—you've looked at the philosophical disputes already, and ultimately I think what you need to make up your mind is time, contemplation, and journeying. Don't think this is something that you need to determine instantly; if there is a God (as, I think, the best evidence indicates there is), then he must be compassionate and certainly is not displeased by someone who deliberately takes the time to figure things out and pursue truth with an open heart.

You're 17. Do you have any plans to go to college? If so, do the institutions you're looking at offer any philosophy of religion courses? Self-study is great, but sometimes coming at an issue in an explicitly academic context helps people really determine and refine what they think.

I, for one, cannot imagine the God in whom I believe sending such a sincere seeker of the truth to hell. Christians believe that God is love, that love is God's very essence (and indeed, if they are correct, the philosophical arguments over at /r/ThroughAGlassDarkly should establish that one of God's characteristics is being all-loving). If you have the time, I'd recommend picking up the book The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, a marvelous exposition into contemporary Christian thought regarding heaven and hell. In short, heaven is the condition of living in love, and hell is the condition of living without love—those who live in love presently on earth are already in an 'anticipated heaven,' as it were, while those who have surrendered to their own selfishness have already descended into a hell of their own making, a prison of their own subjectivity. I can't say for sure, obviously, but from this and other posts you don't strike me as someone whose concern for the satiation of subjective urges outweighs the longing for objective truth.

God is just, loving, and merciful. If you love others and act according to your conscience, I don't think you have reason to fear. Yet by no means cease from exploring. Read widely. If you're at all interested in Christianity I would recommend picking up C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, any popular-level work by N. T. Wright, and perhaps Ratzinger's God and the World or any papal encyclical issued since 2005. If for now you're just trying to wrap your head around the question of whether God exists, I would suggest that you continue to study independently, and plunge headfirst into life, being open to ideas, to people, to new experiences. The reality of God is apprehended not just in philosophical argumentation but also experientially; if in your journeying it becomes evident to you that there is something more, something greater than the hum-drum of everyday life or the experience of material satisfaction and transient happiness, then perhaps you will understand that God is out there, and that he loves you.

u/Wood717 · 7 pointsr/Christianity

I have never had the pleasure of hearing him in person, but I have read The Irresistible Revolution which is a worthwhile read if you ever get the chance.

u/alwaysdoit · 7 pointsr/reddit.com

If you're interested, I found his book Irresistible Revolution to be a really interesting and entertaining read. He basically tells a series of stories about what life might look like if we took many of Jesus' sayings that are commonly ignored and put them into practice.

u/Diosjenin · 6 pointsr/Christianity

Well, two options come to mind. The first: If you are intent on having a Western standard-model house, occupation, family structure, etc., a few pointers:

  • Pick a standard of living (i.e. a certain amount of money to live on per year) and stick with it; anything above that you give away, even if your income level rises due to promotion, job change, etc.
  • Consider living in a place where people of your color/class/socioeconomic status do not normally live and do what you can to contribute relationally to the community there.
  • Open up your home to a stranger in need once in a while. It does little good to pray for a poor man to be able to find a place to sleep if you have an spare bedroom (or even a fold-out couch) that is going unused. Even if only for one night, you have made some difference.
  • Try to take a job that will allow you to give back to the world in some way. Teacher? Teach in a poor neighborhood. Electrical engineer? Design an electrical grid for a third-world country. Lawyer? Join up with Lawyers Without Borders. So on, so forth.

    The second option to keep in mind, though, is this: God may not be calling you to a life where you "pursue a college degree, have stable relationships, live in a home, have a career, etc." I don't know that He is or that He isn't, nor am I familiar with nearly enough about who you are, what you are gifted at, what your passions are, etc. to be able to make so much as a remotely educated guess. But do understand that God makes no guarantees about having a stable life - only that He will be there when it is not stable.

    I very highly recommend you read a book called The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. It is more or less a collection of experiences he has had in his quest for a life defined by God's love. It's a beautiful book anyway, but more specifically, it does spend some time talking about what it can mean to live a God-centric lifestyle. Long story short, there is no singular right answer (remember the 'parts of the body' analogy from 1st Corinthians ch12?), but it goes into some specifics that I think you'd be mightily interested in.

    Do keep us updated - I'd love to hear any future thoughts you have as you continue to search for your place in the Kingdom. :)
u/rapscalian · 6 pointsr/TrueChristian

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - The Cost of Discipleship

EDIT: Just saw that someone else already said this. I won't change mine though because it's a great book.

u/Family_Gardener · 6 pointsr/Christianity
u/scottishclaymore · 6 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

Things you can do at home: I'd recommend getting a prayer book (I started with this one: https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Prayer-Orthodox-Christians-paper/dp/B000FFYC72/) and start reading the morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. They won't take long and, practiced consistently, they will begin to incline your heart towards God. They did mine.

Regarding the Jesus Prayer: God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of love and of a sound mind. You need not be afraid of invoking the name of Jesus "wrongly" as long as you are doing it out of love and a sound mind. Say it reverently and with great love.

"Beginning to Pray" by Met. Anthony Bloom is a wonderful read if you are trying to understand prayer better: https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Pray-Anthony-Bloom/dp/0809115093/ It has the added virtue of being short.

And to echo what others have said, find a way that you can stand in the Church and apprehend this with more than just your noggin'. Seriously. Even if that means you can only get out once or twice a month. That's where my family is at right now, at least through the end of the year. Orthodoxy is such a wonderful thing to experience, but it's also so rich that for inquirers like you and me, even once or twice a month may be enough beauty to feed on until our situations improve.

u/thephotoman · 6 pointsr/Catacombs

Thank you.

Now that I'm back home, here are some recommendations. First, I might note that while /u/johnnytoomuch's post has some good links in it, the truth is that for someone new to the whole Orthodoxy thing, that's all going to be hitting the ground too hard and fast.

So here are my recommendations, geared towards somebody totally new to Orthodoxy (I'd say beginner, but we're all beginners, even the likes of St. Theophon the Recluse).

  1. Bread and Water, Wine and Oil by Archimandrite Meletios (Webber) is actually a relatively solid introduction to both Orthodox theology, practice, and language. It's also a fairly short read. My copy is well dog-eared. If you're a digital guy, there's also a Kindle version.
  2. Beginning to Pray by Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh touches on prayer specifically. What's more, this book will be of use to you regardless of your background.
  3. Check your bookstore for a prayer book. Study the prayers in there. They're actually rather dense. The notes in the one published by Holy Trinity Monastery (ROCOR) in Jordanville, New York, commonly just called the Jordanville Prayerbook, has some excellent note sections, though I would not attempt that full prayer rule without some advising from a spiritual father, particularly for someone new. That book also contains the text of the Divine Liturgy and a few other services, so you can use it to follow along (except for the hymns that are prescribed by the day or week). That said, it does have a few glaring typos in the prayers themselves--they work on revising it regularly, though.
  4. If you really want to get in to how the Divine Liturgy (and the rest of the services) are put together, get yourself a copy of the horologion. This one is also by Holy Trinity Monastery, and is in common use at many English speaking Orthodox parishes in North America. I warn you, though: that rabbit hole is very deep. There are 13 different books we pull from*.

    I'd also ask the priest what book he uses for his inquirers class.

    * For a layman, the horologion and psalter (if you have a Bible, you have the psalter) are the core of it. You do not need and should probably not purchase your own copy of the Menaion (the books that give the hymns for feasts and saints) or the Ochtoechos (the books that give the hymns for the tone of the week). I'm also not mentioning the Triodion (the book of Lent) or Pentecostarion (the book of Pascha). The other 7 books are generally clergy books or books for specific occasions.
u/Im_just_saying · 6 pointsr/Christianity

It's a big, tough read, but Hans Urs Von Balthazar's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? is a solid, theologically profound, well thought out, rooted-in-the-ancient-faith study that addresses your question. Von B. was a Roman Catholic theologian - JPII's favorite theologian - brilliant but deep writer.

u/jij · 6 pointsr/Christianity

... are you serious? I've got some great beach property in Oklahoma for sale...

If you liked this item you may also like this :p

u/ilikegays123 · 6 pointsr/GayChristians

There are actually MANY resources available to you fortunately! There are many people in the same position that you are in who find they can live a life of being themselves while still believing and following Jesus and the teachings of Christianity. To help your search, I would suggest making a profile and putting yourself out there/ checking out this website:

https://www.gaychristian.net/

As well as reading up on the book titled "Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate" by Justin Lee.

(http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Rescuing-Gospel-Gays-vs-Christians-Debate/dp/1455514306)

His book makes a way for there to be a healthy conversation between different groups who believe it is OK to be gay and christian in a loving, committed same sex relationship (the "side A" field) and those who believe it is OK to be gay and christian, as long as the gay person is celibate (the "side B" people)...

There is a facebook group that you can join who have been connected through the gay christian website network... just put yourself out there and there are many opportunities for connection!

u/RN-RescueNinja · 6 pointsr/Parenting

You may be interested in the parenting philosophy called Love and Logic. Here’s the book: Parenting With Love And Logic (Updated and Expanded Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1576839540/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_sLRIBbYQ4CVEC

It seems to mesh well with your calm parenting style. They advocate for room time, which is a modified version of time out that you could easily implement.

This parenting style involves being very empathetic before giving consequences. They emphasize learning opportunities and giving kids appropriate choices so they can feel in control sometimes.

A unique concept in this philosophy is the “energy drain.” Basically any of her exhausting behaviors can drain your energy and later in the day you act too tired to do something she wants to do, reminding her of the annoying thing she did earlier. Then she is given an opportunity to help you regain your energy (chores etc). It’s a neat idea because you aren’t giving her consequences in the moment when she’s acting out and likely unwilling to cooperate, but she still learns that there are consequences.

u/lvl_5_laser_lotus · 6 pointsr/Buddhism

The Way of the Bodhisattva

H. H. the Dalai Lama - "If I have any understanding of compassion and the practice of the bodhisattva path, it is entirely on the basis of this text that I possess it."

u/iamacowmoo · 6 pointsr/Buddhism

I suggest you read A Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life by Shantideva and a commentary. You can read a different commentary but this one is very philosophical in nature and breaks it down for you. I failed miserably to explain emptiness in two threads yesterday so I'm deferring to the masters.

u/sigstkflt · 6 pointsr/Buddhism

I don't think there is one, though it would be an appropriate work to eventually receive such a treatment.

There are only really three (published) English versions to speak of: by the Padmakara Translation Group,
Vesna Wallace, and Crosby and Skilton. I can't vouch for any of them.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 6 pointsr/atheism

If they do, I haven't found them, and it's not for lack of looking. Neither has Lohn Loftus, who also made the same argument in his book "The Christian Delusion". Neither have the Christians of Reddit, I've brought it up multiple times and the only 2 real answers yet are something like "god doesn't give a shit about us", which, well, kind of goes against the god talked about in the bible a bit, and "evolution is false", which is just flat out ignorant.

Edit: Platinga (probably Christendom's best philosopher) takes on a subset of this argument(doesn't address the blaming humans part) and comes up with a 3rd answer: Blame Satan.

This is but one of the many reasons I am a fairly recent ex-Christian.

u/sharplikeginsu · 6 pointsr/exchristian

Knowing that brilliant people believe was one of the things that kept me in the faith for a very long time. I really get that "who am I to judge" inner voice.

What helped was getting the opportunity to question those I deemed most brilliant, and discovering something shocking. The smarter you are, the more convoluted your defenses of things can get.

I found amongst the brightest a few strains.

Most of them had abstracted God into something very remote from the Judeochristian mainstream. He is an idea, he is unknown and unknowable, the stories about him are metaphor, man's grasping attempt to reach out and touch the untouchable. I think this makes it possible for you to be aware of the vast volumes of evidence against Gods in general, and the specific Christian God in particular, and yet feel it's ok because it's part of the mystery. They were perhaps better classed as Deists, but staying in the community they were in and playing along.

Some, but fewer, of them had found a way to reject the findings of science (at least in the areas that conflicted with them) completely, because of some version of God's Ways Are Higher Than Ours and We Can't Understand Them. They willfully remained ignorant of much of the historical/textual/archeological/scientific evidence because those are Lies of Atheistic people who are Afraid To Obey God so their ideas should be ignored.

And one very sad one was struggling with a fatal disease, and clinging to this belief for comfort.

Nobody was able to give me a simple explanation for why to believe. They either weren't aware of the evidence, couldn't address the evidence, or they way they did made it so abstract that you might as well believe anything.

If you can find someone whose intellect you admire and ask them why they believe, you might find it's for reasons like this, and that might help let this go.

The ultimate stopper for me is what /u/xlightbrightx said; brilliant people believe all kinds of crazy, incompatible things. Indoctrination is powerful. If you want a very comprehensive guide through this line of thinking check out The Outsider Test For Faith. It's unreasonable for you to wake up afraid of hell and not also be afraid of, e.g., being reincarnated as a cockroach. You were just indoctrinated with one fear and not the other.

u/the_unfinished_I · 5 pointsr/AskReddit

I'm not a Christian, but I recently read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. I thought it was a nice argument. It didn't make me want to be Christian, but it helped me see things from their side. He writes very clearly, and has obviously put a bit of thought into it.

http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249962373&sr=8-1

I'm guessing most other redditors will recommend things from the atheist side - but you've got to consider her side too.

u/AgentSmithRadio · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I've read two books which were recommended to me by this subreddit.

The first book I read was The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. I was already a Lewis fan, but I had ignored this book. It is now by and far in my top 3 books, and it's still an emotional roller-coaster just thinking about it. That man had an absurd talent for offering theological insight through allegory. I was able to read it in two sittings.

The other book was Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright. On top of me enjoying his insight, this book really cleaned up what I thought about death and the Christian afterlife, pre and post-resurrection. It was the theological insight I needed the hear on the topic, and it was very impactful on me.

Both are solid reads, and I'd recommend them to anyone.

u/silouan · 5 pointsr/Christianity

At the risk of blogspamming :-) here's an article I wrote about it: The River of God

It may not be THE Orthodox view, but it's one that's been taught pretty consistently across the Orthodox world for a very long time.

Bottom line: The fire-and-brimstone, Your Day In Court imagery is mostly metaphor; that's why no two Judgment Day accounts seem to quite match up. Take metaphors and imagery too literally and you end up with silly scenarios, as the atheists love to point out. That doesn't mean we can ignore the metaphors, though: The language Christ uses about gehenna and John's references to the Lake of Fire point to something sobering and real that we need to avoid.

C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent story called The Great Divorce that eloquently describes a very Orthodox understanding of hell. Unlike Orthodox writers, though, he's not longwinded about it. :-\

u/MRH2 · 5 pointsr/CreationEvolution

I think that Intelligent Design explains things at least as well as evolutionary theory, maybe better. I personally have trouble seeing that evolution has any explanatory power or benefit to science. The explanations seem to be almost always "just so" stories. How did birds develop flight? When the protobirds were jumping off of trees some had feathery mutations and they landed further away. Eventually this sort of thing led to perfectly formed feathers and wings. (The cursorial theory of flight is just as bad as this arboreal one). When one looks at biology and see some new enzyme or organelle, one always asks what it does, what it's purpose is. This is a tacit acknowledgement of underlying intelligent design. This is how we make progress in biochemistry. When we assume things are due to random evolutionary processes, then science stagnates - e.g. examining junk DNA for function. (But this is a bit of a tangent now and I don't want to get derailed too much.)

I think that the main answer to your question is that each organism has exactly what it needs for its job. An earthworm does not need anything that it doesn't have. Why should it have amazing eyesight? If it had amazing armour like a crocodile, then it would mess up the food chain as birds couldn't eat it. I don't know details about everything : for example the different digestive systems that you're talking about. A lot of the time, the answer is the main one that I've mentioned already, combined with the need to have a balanced ecosystem. (By the way, if you think designing one organism is complex, how about a self-sustaining self-healing ecosystem). Here are some examples:

If our noses were as good as dogs, we probably couldn't live in cities. We'd be appalled at the terrible smells everywhere. But dogs don't seem to mind. If we could digest cellulose like termites or cows and horses we would have had the current population explosion much sooner. People would have eaten every non-poisonous green plant there is. We are like that - short term self-preservation and self-gratification no matter what the long term consequences are - e.g. no more trees on the planet. We don't need the best of everything because we can compensate for it using our brain. We don't need to see better than we do. We need to be able to see up close - we can do very intricate needlework and soldering unaided (until we get old), we need to be able to read clearly and quickly, we need to be able to see well in the middle distance and reasonable well in far distance.

The other part of answering your question involves my viewpoint of God, which I rarely bring into these discussions, preferring instead to focus on science. I think that we have things like external testicles, good enough eyes, no photosynthesis in our skin, etc. to make us limited, to prevent us from being invincible like superheroes. I think that God has made it so that we need to eat plants instead of being an intelligent plant so that we are part of the ecosystem and look after it because it provides for us. We need to learn dependency because we always want to wrest control for ourselves and become superhuman. This dependency also manifests itself in the need for sleep. A supreme designer could have made it so that we (and animals) don't need to sleep, but the need for sleep makes us weaker. We are defenseless when we are asleep. There are also all sorts of social implications and benefits to sleep: homes, families, time off work, etc. Men are already stronger than women and the main aggressors and abusers; having external testicles that are incredibly painful when injured is a way of adding a bit more weakness. I mean, even having external testicles, why should they be so painful? After procreating it makes no sense. It would be better if it just felt like banging your elbow.

There are some things that I have issues with still. The main one being testosterone. Why would God make it so that the drive for sex is so strong that it results in the subjugation of half of the human race? Prostitution, sex trafficking. Why would be make it so that testosterone results in such extreme aggression, warfare, violence?

It's also hard to figure this out because we are moving away from biology (why does our thumb work how it does), to behaviour. When we move to behaviour (bringing God into things and the Christian world view), we need to consider human nature and the Fall. As part of humanity's initial rebellion against God, things broke and got shattered. This is probably when many parasites became harmful, diseases began etc. It's hard to know for sure as we don't know the details. And yet we still see that things are generally well designed (immune system, the eye, liver, etc). So while the Fall brought suffering and aging and death, it didn't radically degrade us biologically (oh dear, I really don't want to get into this, because we don't know that much about the details). The main thing is that human nature has changed. This is a vitally important thing that we need to recognize and account for. Human nature has a dark side that can't be erased, that can't be fixed by scientific progress and discovery. People thought that rationalism and the scientific revolution would fix all our problems. That we would be just, humane, noble. That there would be no more wars (the war to end all wars), that education could solve violence, crime, abuse, famine. But it doesn't work. This is why we are happily destroying our planet (see /r/collapse) and we won't act until it is too late. I don't think a non-Christian view of human nature works nor explains things as well as the narrative that has the Fall. We are a mixture of good and bad. We all have a shadow side. It's only by turning back to God, by looking at Jesus and following him that we can fix our human nature, that we can be transformed into new people, and even then it takes time and work. Religion (incl. Christianity) that just makes a bunch of rules cannot do this. We already have rules in society and they're broken regularly. Islam is all about rules, but they're filled with hatred and lust just as much as anyone else. The unbelievable spread of Christianity over the first 300 years from being only in Jerusalem to infiltrating the whole Roman empire happened because of changed human nature, not self-promotion, politics, campaigns. Something very unusual happened that we don't really see Christians doing any more today (at least in the West). The sociologist Rodney Stark explains it.

I hope that this was interesting. I need to get off reddit and do other work!

u/Sarah-rah-rah · 5 pointsr/IAmA

Wow, you're absolutely terrible at debate.

What everyone is trying to explain to you that just because OP went around a few dangerous places and lived, that doesn't make these places safe. Hence, OP saying "you were all wrong!" is disingenuous because it's based on luck instead of actual crime stats.

A few resources for learning how to debate topics online: this book, this book, all of these.

u/bloub · 5 pointsr/skeptic

Crimes against Logic, by Jamie Whyte. It's really clever and witty.

Edit : you can find a lot of his Times articles here. Be sure to check The five great fallacies and how to spot them.

u/GregoireDeNarek · 5 pointsr/Christianity

A recent work by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God is well worth reading (it is more philosophical than its title lets on).

Ed Feser's The Last Superstition is good and I would also recommend his Scholastic Metaphysics.


u/infinityball · 5 pointsr/mormon

I suggest starting with the book The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart (here). It's a book that attempts to show what the major religious traditions traditionally meant by "God." It's extremely different from Mormon God and very eye-opening.

I remain chiefly interested in Christianity. I also have difficulty saying what I believe is "factually true" about Christ's life, but I find myself drawn toward Christ as a person: his wisdom, humility, and love. In short, I continue to desire to be a disciple, even if I operate with less certainty than I used to. Christ, as the archetype of the Good Man, resonates with me. For now, for me, that's enough.

u/SellusGravius · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I'm sort of similar to you. Except I was never a Christian before, I've recently taken up an interest and a desire to learn about it. So far, I've learned a LOT, and whereas before I would call myself probably an agnostic? Now I would say that I believe there is a creator, and that if that's true, it's probably also true that Jesus died and was resurrected..

Anyway, that's beside the point. What I was going to suggest is that reading the bible is great, and of course is the most important thing. But may I suggest some other things that I've read and watched alongside it that helped me understand? It really helps to listen to some arguments from historians, scientists, and people that have spent their lives researching these matters.

For me, I was very concerned about the historical reliability of things etc, such as when the gospels were written, who by. I'm a person that places value on evidence and really struggle to just "believe" things... I wish it wasn't so, but there you go.

Of course, I can only suggest things I've read and watched so far so admittedly this.

The Case for Christ. A journalist sets out to disprove Christianity by interviewing many well respected scholars, and ends up becoming a Christian. There's also a movie based on this which was very good.

More Than A Carpenter. This talks about the life and evidence for Jesus, as well as the reliability of the gospels.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict Admittedly I haven't read much of this yet, its the next one I'm going to tackle. It's quite a difficult read and has a LOT in it.

Cold Case Reliability of the Gospels. A video where a Cold Case detective discusses whether the gospels would stand up to the same scrutiny that he applies to cold cases. Very interesting if a bit long (I urge you to power through the beginning, I was a bit put off when he started talking about his daughter being a Marine).

Hugh Ross. If you have a more scientific mind and struggle to come to terms with Genesis and the Flood etc, Hugh Ross is a great man to watch. He's an astrophysicist that became a Christian, and has many scientific ways to back up whats stated in the bible. There's many videos of him.

From there, you could find many more sources and things to read. By reading Case for Christ, I've decided to read some of the books that are mentioned in it (although I'm still waiting on delivery). I bought a couple of Hugh Ross' books, although only one arrived yet and its very scientific and I don't think its quite what I need to read right now, I'm awaiting another one "The Creator and the Cosmos" and I'd love to read his "A Matter of Days" too which talks about the Genesis days. I also ordered This yesterday which I'm excited to read.

Sorry for the overly log post but I hope it helps. Also this is my first time putting hyperlinks on reddit so I really hope it works properly!

u/ValiantTurtle · 5 pointsr/Christianity

Given your title I'm amazed no-one has recommended this book yet:

Torn: Rescuing Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate

The author is the founder of the Gay Christian Network, (www.gaychristian.net) which supports gay Christians who believe it's acceptable to be in monogamous relationships and those who believe they are called to be celibate. There are several interviews and such with him online that you might want to search for. His personal blog is here: http://gcnjustin.tumblr.com/

u/themsc190 · 5 pointsr/GayChristians

As others have recommended, if you want to explore and better understand the belief that being gay isn’t a sin, then I also recommend Torn by Justin Lee or God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines.

u/notahitandrun · 5 pointsr/RightwingLGBT

I came from that background. In fact I think many who are conservative and gay have grown up in Christian / Catholic / Mormon households and it is familiar to us. We were rejected for being gay, christian, and conservative a triple whammy.

I'd suggest listening to youtube Gay Christian Network. Watch This Documentary. Tons of videos like this. There are several who do support the LGBT community and have their own churches. They just had a conference that was huge (once a year). I have backed away from it as they have become much to political for me with a liberal tint and Trump hate. But there is definitely Republicans and Democrats there. Checkout the other videos as well the full conference is online. IF you want a explanation of the bible and homosexuality Matthew Vine has a book. But Dr. Brownson is much deeper.

Many are wounded by their faith and the hatred they received the totally reject religion and become almost rebellious liberal SJWs. Some like myself become private about our faith (hell it's hard enough to find a conservative) and personal, often not the ultra religious types (It was another part of yourself that became closeted as some gays hate religion and conservative viewpoints). Some are super religious and from liberal accepting backgrounds (families) so I think it's easier for them in a way. I think there are many more liberal christian gays than conservatives. Because of separation of church and state some are closeted trump supporters. Peter Theil is conservative and Christian. Tony Campolo Pastor, Rob Bell mega church pastor famous for his Nooma videos, Jay baker son of Jim and Tammy (hes quite alternative), Hillsong Christian Singer Vicky Beeching, Singer Jennifer Knapp.

They say as generations go by, the younger generation grew up with Gay is ok and are much more accepting, many leave the church when they grow older.


{Documentary}_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImNx1JA3BI - Documentary on Being Gay and Christian (experiences)

{Deep Dive into Bible Verses - Theology}__

Matthew Vine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8ZgSHK6tdA

Dr. James Brownson (Deep Dive Theology)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1f0KD-B0Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKOTNneoOpU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kONByDAXko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt-a0BiAEVs

{Videos}___

https://www.youtube.com/user/GayChristianNetwork - Videos why its ok to be gay and christian, Speakers Keynotes from Gay Christian Network Conference 1,500 Attendees

{Books}_


http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Rescuing-Gospel-Gays-vs-Christians-Debate/dp/1455514306 - Justin Lee (biography about being gay and christian)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Gay-Christian-Biblical-Relationships-ebook/dp/B00F1W0RD2 - Matthew Vines

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Gender-Sexuality-Reframing-Relationships/dp/0802868630 - Dr. James Brownson (deep dive theology)

{Forum / Gay Christian Message Board}

http://www.gaychristian.net

{Find a Gay Affirming Church}____


http://www.gaychurch.org

u/Caseycrowe · 5 pointsr/Christianity

Not everyone believes it to be such. There's good evidence with more recent looks at the original text that the word abomination was inappropriately used there.

There are multiple books on the subject, but may I suggest Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.

And then of course Jesus never spoke of homosexuality, for whatever reason.

As Christians we should always be searching for truth. Because all truth is God's truth. And we should be open to having our beliefs changed as we get new information. :)

u/ErrantThought · 5 pointsr/Christianity

Also: Justin Lee, the founder of gaychristian.net wrote an amazing book called Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate. I highly recommend it. In it he tells his story about discovering as a teenager that he had same sex attractions, and he asked a lot of the questions that you ask. /u/therealsilvanus, please check out the book. And his website provides a safe, nonjudgmental place to discuss these types of questions with other Christians who have SSA. Good luck.

u/TheWholeTruthMatters · 5 pointsr/AmItheAsshole

ESH - Y'all need to see a therapist. Especially one who specializes with kids. Need to be consistent and agreed on the ground rules between the two of you and how you treat all the kids. Try this book for him too: https://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Love-Logic-Updated-Expanded/dp/1576839540

u/distantocean · 5 pointsr/exchristian

God is Disappointed in You is a condensed version of the entire Bible. Absolutely hilarious, and by far the best way to read the Bible if you don't actually want to read the Bible. You can read a sample chapter (Genesis) online; here's an excerpt:

> God built a beautiful garden in Iraq for Adam and Eve to live in. Adam and Eve spent their days running around naked and playing frisbee. They ate a lot of fruit. It was a lot like living at a Grateful Dead concert. God’s one rule was that they couldn’t eat the fruit from this magical tree he’d planted in the center of the garden. I don’t know why he put it there. It just tied the whole garden together.

> Understandably, Adam and Eve were consumed with curiosity about this tree. It was just one of thousands of trees in the garden, but now they found it impossible to resist eating its magical fruit... and having a talking snake constantly goading them into it didn’t help any. So Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and were immediately endowed with the knowledge of good and evil, which mostly made them uptight about nudity.

> When God found out about the missing fruit, he went apeshit. He yelled at them, evicted Adam and Eve from the garden and, as extra punishment, he ordered them to become parents. This move backfired, however, because Adam and Eve simply filled the world with children who murdered each other, worshiped idols and had sex with giants, all of which really pulled God’s beard.

And another:

> God really hated Sodom and Gomorrah. The people there wanted to have sex with absolutely everything. They even tried to have sex with two angels God sent to warn Lot leave town. Angel rape is not how you get on God’s good side, so God incinerated the cities and all their inhabitants with fire and brimstone, except for Lot and his family, whom he let escape. But during their getaway, Lot’s wife made the mistake of turning to look back upon her burning hometown, for which God turned her into a pillar of salt, her punishment for the crime of nostalgia.

> Lot’s daughters felt it was a shame that, because their mother was salt, Lot would never have a son to carry on his family name. So they got their father drunk and had sex with him until he impregnated them both, which sort of made Lot his own father-in-law.

The author (Mark Russell) followed it up with a book based on the Apocrypha (Apocrypha Now) which isn't quite as funny but is still worth a look, especially if you're not familiar with those books.

u/DivineMaster · 4 pointsr/Christianity

This. Also, if you want a kick in the pants (re: laziness), pick up a copy of Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship.

u/Holladay808 · 4 pointsr/lgbt

The book Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate helped me (mostly) come to terms with my faith and sexuality. It's part biography, part theologian argument regarding accepting homosexuality and Christianity. It has a view on homosexuality being okay, assuming the same rules of heterosexual marriage (ex. abstinence until marriage). It's $8.82 used from Amazon with Prime shipping.

u/Thomas_Amundsen_ · 4 pointsr/Buddhism

Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna

Madhyamakavatara by Chandrakirti

Aryadeva's 400 Stanzas

Bodhisattvacharyavatara by Shantideva

u/Jimmy_Melnarik · 4 pointsr/RadicalChristianity

I think that this will give you a basic overview better than I ever could

For further reading (if your honestly interested) I'd suggest:

u/IH8FF0000IT · 4 pointsr/askgaybros

Christianity and homosexuality are not in conflict. The idea that they are is a rather recent one, and is not universally accepted. Please read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Gay-Christian-Biblical-Relationships/dp/1601425163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426707633&sr=8-1&keywords=god+and+the+gay+christian

Being gay doesn't mean giving up your faith.

u/ziddina · 4 pointsr/exjw

https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983

​

I'll have to pick up a used copy - thanks!

u/camspiers · 4 pointsr/OpenChristian

I'm an atheist, and most will hate me for this, but I don't recommend The God Delusion. There are better books, and Dawkins is much better when he writes about biology.

Atheist worldview book: I recommend Sense and Goodness without God by Richard Carrier

Books about Christianity (there are so many to recommend, but these are some favorites):

  • The Christian Delusion by various authors.
  • Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms

    I'm a big fan of Spong, so I would recommend any of his books. Also Robert M. Price is worth looking into, he has lots of free sermons and writings available from when he was a liberal pastor and theologian, which he is not anymore.

u/telperion87 · 4 pointsr/Catholic

> it's always been taught to me that this is absolutely never ok no matter what

I didn't know that. which protestant church do you adhere to?

anyway for historic reasons it just seems madness to me. christianity literally spread through mixed marriages firstly between christians and the pagan romans (see this book for a reference) and after that through the marriages between the christians and the barbaric people (see queen Theodolinda as an example) and most of the time the christian one was the woman.

anyway marriage is just a help for living your life in a relationship that can resemble the relationship with Christ. I don't see anything wrong in marrying someone not christian. (especially if he is not ideologically against religion).

u/AmoDman · 3 pointsr/Christianity

You asked why, not for a deductive argument proving the truth of our answers.


If you have intellectual worries about God, feel free to browse the various categories of responses to questions concerning His existence.


If you have doubts about Jesus, only you can answer those for yourself. We believe that He's divine and approaches us all relationally. Read a Gospel or two (John and Mark are my favorites). Get to know the story and seriously ask yourself if this Christ person, as character, speaks to you in any way.


NT Wright is a pretty well regarded orthodox Christian scholar by both Christians and Non-Christians, so you may want to read some of his work if you have questions to address about the truth of this character. Who Was Jesus? and Simply Jesus may help you.


If you find any of that compelling and wish to dig into some Christian theology of Jesus, a couple excellent books which portray my personal take fairly well are King Jesus Gospel and Start Here.

And, of course, if you wish merely to approach the idea of Christianity in general, C.S. Lewis famously asserted many fundamentals in his classic Mere Christianity.


If you want me to assert the truth Christianity by disproving all other religions, I will not. I believe that religion is, fundamentally, a search for the divine or God. If divine truth exists, I would expect it to be echoed throughout the mythic language of all attempts to know Him (religions). Conversely, I assert the goodness and truth of Jesus Christ, who I see as central, and anything else that matters falls naturally into place.

u/jet11584 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

If you are looking for a imaging of what hell is, why it exists and why God may be just in letting hell exist, might I suggest reading the Great Divorce by CS Lewis. It presents a hell that is nothing like Dante's interpretation, but still shows how awful it could be and how much better a relationship with God would be.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Divorce-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652950

Edit: Typo

u/pensivebadger · 3 pointsr/Reformed

You can see this perspective played out a little in The Great Divorce in which Lewis rides a bus from Earth to hell and then to heaven, and also in The Last Battle in which Aslan proclaims to the devout Calormene soldier, "all the service thou hast done to Tash [a false god], I accept as service done to me… no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."

u/ThaneToblerone · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I've been reading Dr. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and finding it to be pretty stimulating so if you want something on the more academic end then that could be good.

CS Lewis's The Great Divorce is a good, quick read with an interesting take on the natures of Heaven and Hell.

Rev. Dr. Mary Kathleen Cunningham is a very good scholar who I studied under during undergrad and who has put together a very nice reader which surveys the spectrum of belief in the creationism/evolution debate called God and Evolution which is good if you're interested in that kind of thing.

Dr. Craig Keener has a good, cohesive commentary on the New Testament which you can buy as a single volume called The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.

So there's a few to start out with. Let me know if you're looking for anything more specific and I can try to help (I have a budding theological library in my apartment).

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/irresolute_essayist · 3 pointsr/Christianity

It's more than "not horrifyingly inhumane". It's overwhelming loving and beneficial. That's the Gospel. Or part of it. The other part is sharing that not just the body but the soul can be saved. And Christ has reconciled us to God and defeated death and wrongness. And one day all will be set right. You say that even wanting to preach the second part as well as the first is dishonest and manipulating the poor. I disagree. The first, food, as much physical wholeness as we can offer, is offered and the second, which is Christ, spiritual wholeness, but the first is offered even if the second is rejected.

The modern idea to even consider the poor and disenfranchised, as a philosophical proposition or a quest of the heart, is largely rooted in Christian thought. Christian presuppositions are inseparable from much of the foundations of Western ethics. For this reason it is accurate to say the Enlightenment accepted Christian morals but rejected the Christian God.

Here's one book examining the sociological reasons for the success of Christianity. Among them are Christianity's treatment of women and the poor.

Now, Christendom, the political reaching of those places impacted by Christianity has not had a great track-record. But in days where everyone claimed the title "Christian" how can we not expect atrocities committed in the name of Christ? For, sadly, atrocities happen everywhere.

What's unique is the love Christianity brings.

It's what inspired Christians like William Wilburforce to convince his country to commit virtual econocide by ending slavery-- which was brought about by "Christian" men with hearts after gold rather than God.

I may never convince you. I will probably never convince you. But, honestly, that's all I have time to write now. It's short. It doesn't explain the impact of the Christian heart for the downtrodden at all.

Please read this:

>The Parable of the Good Samaritan
>25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
>
>29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii [1] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

Remember, Samaritans were hated by the Jews. Think of the significance of this and tell me that Christianity does not value loving the "least of these".

As I began to say, I may never convince you. I believe it will only be once you see for yourself Christians truly loving their neighbor that you will see it is not only possible but a direct outgrowth of our belief.


u/q203 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

If you want a sociological take on this, check out Rodney Stark's book The Rise of Christianity. I don't personally agree with his take on everything, but it is a bit different from the answer you would usually get from Christians.

u/SoundTrax · 3 pointsr/atheism

I listened to the audiobook of this book and was pissed. Orson Scott Card was just using the characters to espouse his points of view through the mouths of children, and apparently all the African Christians weren't good enough to save their own country (at one point the African survivor character bemoans that his Christian family and villagers weren't nice enough to help each other when they were sick) or help or anything because the American Christians wanted to break the stupid quarantine to come in and help. But the real kicker was when the stupid American kids and the stupid American Catholic mom start talking about this book like it was actual and undisputed fact. Aargh! I don't think I'd ever rage quit an audiobook before. I'm seriously turned off by OSC's writing now and I don't think I'll read any of his new books.

u/the_real_jones · 3 pointsr/Christianity

First I would point out that depending on your background you may be under the assumption that there is a dichotomy between the Bible and science. The reality is when you place the Bible in its proper context such a dichotomy need not exist. Secondly, I would recommend David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God. Hart points out the flaw of the strict materialism of the new atheists and shows how it is a flawed philosophical approach that most of the new atheists take (often without even being aware it) which prevents moral outrage and ultimately undercuts most of the new atheists arguments against theism. Much of his argumentation comes from being both a theologian and a scholar of Nietschze. The reason I bring this book up is the issue that I'm seeing in your post is that you seem to be moving towards this materialist philosophy. I should note that this book is an apologetics book (a discipline I don't care for) but rather a philosophy book. Ultimately Hart even argues that an atheism that is not founded on materialism actually has the ability to have profound moral outrage. I hope that this will help you navigate your journey, whatever path you end up taking.

u/SubversiveLove · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Questioning your motives for believing in God is actually a very good thing. Don't be affald to do that.

My suggestion would be to discover a faith that you would want to live out no matter what happens when you die. A faith that is the reward in itself.

I don't think I have that kind of faith but I know someone who does and his book might be just what you need.

u/aardvarkious · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I would suggest reading this book

>Choosing sides in the Israel and Palestine conflict.

I think the Christian side is for the weak and the powerless. For example, the Israeli families that have random rockets dropped onto their homes. And the Palestinian children who have had phosphorous dropped on their schools. I take sides with the victims of violence, not the perpetrators of violence.

>Interactions with people of different cultures and/or race then your own.

Different cultures are a beautiful thing that should be experienced and enjoyed. That being said, we are all brothers and sisters. People in varying cultures are no more or less human than other people.'

>Fighting over land, or land disputes (like Native Canadian's claims) when we all are suppose to be brothers and sisters.

I think Christians should be very much involved in these kinds of disputes, nonviolently fighting for the people who are downtrodden..

>Countries, how they hem people in and do not allow for socialization and prohibit others from entering.

I think it sucks

u/revparadox · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Maybe you're in crisis with the version of Christianity presented to you. Maybe you need to rediscover it. When I was in a similar situation, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical helped me a lot.

Faith and beliefs are different things.

Praying is not, necessarily, speaking with/to God. Just be at her presence, without talking.

u/justanumber2u · 3 pointsr/exmormon

People accept emotionally, justify rationally… and ever religion, there's an element of ridiculousness.

I was once in a Buddha seminar with monks from Tibet visiting the US. They'd actually convinced people in the room that if you mediate hard enough at this chart and had good "alignment" of body, soul, mind, etc… you could stop wearing glasses and contacts.

You can also read about someone being an atheist buddha.

u/mindroll · 3 pointsr/Buddhism

In Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, Stephen Batchelor wrote of visiting the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan, three decades before they were reduced to a pile of rocks.

"From the monk's cell, hewn out of the sandstone cliff centuries earlier, where I spent my days idly smoking a potent blend of marijuana, hashish, and tobacco, a narrow passage led to a dark inner staircase that I would illuminate by striking matches. The steep rock steps climbed to an opening that brought me out, via a narrow ledge, onto the smooth dome of the giant Buddha's head, which fell away dizzily on all sides to the ground one hundred and eighty feet below. On the ceiling of the niche above were faded fragments of painted Buddhas and bodhisattvas. I feared looking up at them for too long lest I lose my balance, slip, and plummet earthward. As my eyes became used to the fierce sunlight, I would gaze out onto the fertile valley of Bamiyan, a patchwork of fields interspersed with low, flat-roofed farmhouses, which lay stretched before me. It was the summer of 1972. This was my first encounter with the remains of a Buddhist civilization, one that had ended with Mahmud of Ghazni's conquest of Afghanistan in the eleventh century.

Like others on the hippie trail to India, I thought of myself as a traveler rather than a mere tourist, someone on an indeterminate quest rather than a journey with a prescribed beginning and end. Had I been asked what I was seeking, I doubt my answer would have been very coherent. I had no destination, either of the geographical or spiritual kind. I was simply "on the road," in that anarchic and ecstatic sense celebrated by Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and other role models I revered at the time.

I enjoyed nothing more than simply being on the way to somewhere else. I was quite content to peer for hours through the grimy, grease-smeared windows of a rattling bus with cooped chickens in the aisle, observing farmers bent over as they toiled in fields,women carrying babies on their backs, barefoot children playing in the dust, old men seated in the shade smoking hookahs, and all the shabby little towns and villages at which we stopped for sweet tea and unleavened bread." https://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071

---
While the adventures of past pilgrims are inspiring, other types of journeys are impressive as well:

Cave in the Snow: A Western Woman's Quest for Enlightenment https://www.amazon.com/Cave-Snow-Western-Womans-Enlightenment/dp/0747543895

The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Two-Hands-Clapping-Education/dp/0520232607


u/manaNinja · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Star Trek Collection, a watch and this book which brings you in at about $72 :)

u/Majorobviousphd · 3 pointsr/TrueChristian

In case you want to read up more on your question, you may be interested in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s struggle with the same thing. Give Ethics or The Cost of Discipleship a try. TLDR; he was a pastor in the end who decided it was biblical to conspire against Hitler and it cost him his life. Really smart, well-reasoned man who had a biblical basis for what he wrote. Found myself challenged by his books.

u/riskmgmt · 3 pointsr/Christianity

The easiest way to get Christianity is to read the Bible. But to supplement that, I would encourage you to read books by these two German authors: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jurgen Moltmann

Bonhoeffer was a prominent leader of the confessing church (the church that resisted Hitler) and was a prominent member of the German resistance and a part of the Valkyrie plot. If you want to know more about him and his life, Eric Metaxas wrote an excellent Biography about him. Bonhoeffer's most famous works are "Life Together" about living a life in Christian community, and "The Cost of Discipleship" which is about Grace and how we must not live in a place of cheap Grace. Bonhoeffer was executed a t Flossenburg concentration camp a few months before VE day, and there are some nice memorials to him there (about 1.5 hours east of Nurnberg).

Jurgen Moltmann was drafted into Hitler's army in like 1944 and was taken prisoner. He found God in a Scottish POW camp. Moltmann writes a lot about Hope and spends a lot of time exploring what Christ's sacrifices mean to believers. Some of his most famous works are "The Crucified God", "Theology of Hope", "Trinity and the Kingdom" and "The Way of Jesus Christ." Moltmann also comments on more social issues which arose in the post-war era and has a more social theology, which adds a unique depth to his writing.

u/tachynic · 3 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

The Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours is a completely different text from the Orthodox Liturgy of the Hours, although it is similar in some respects, such as having times of prayer throughout the day. However, the prayers themselves are different.

They are also used differently. The Catholic Liturgy of the Hours has been somewhat abbreviated and can be used at home by individuals. The Orthodox Liturgy of the Hours is typically used only in monasteries and parishes by those who have access to the numerous hymn books required.

At home, Orthodox typically pray a morning and evening (and sometimes midday) prayer rule. You can find typical Orthodox morning and evening prayers in a prayer book such as the Jordanville Prayer Book.

If you are interested in a general introduction to prayer from an Orthodox perspective, I highly recommend Beginning to Pray by Met. Anthony Bloom.

edit: Also, the "Liturgy of the Hours" (aka "Divine Office") is not to be confused with the "Divine Liturgy," which is what we call the Roman "Mass," i.e. the service in which the sacrament of the Eucharist is performed.

u/awholtzapple · 3 pointsr/Christianity

This is something I am struggling with myself. I recently found a book called "Beginning to Pray" by Anthony Bloom, an Orthodox clergyman; only $10 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809115093).

I am only on the second chapter, but I am beginning to form a new understanding of prayer - perhaps that is what you need as well. The first chapter of the book, "The Absence of God" is particularly on point with what you are talking about.

I have recently started "contemplative prayer" which really has helped clear my mind and stop the "wandering" - which happens to everyone BTW - perhaps you would want to explore this practice too.

u/isestrex · 3 pointsr/ELINT

Jesus ascended into heaven in a glorified body. When he rose from the grave, he looked different. Some suspected he was a ghost (i.e. purely spiritual), but he made clear that he was not a spirit. He was phyiscal, and yet he did not have an earthly body but a heavenly resurrected body.

The bible clearly tells us that we will one day join him and be given similar bodies:

"The Lord Jesus Christ... will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." (Philippians 3:20-21)

"As just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bare the likeness of the man from heaven". (1 Cor 15:49)

Therefore the type of things Jesus was able to do after his resurrection are things we can expect to do in heaven (e.g. eat, talk, walk). When he ascended, he did not materialize into some ghost like spirit, but kept his physical resurrected body. Just as Jesus ate on earth, we are promised to eat and drink in heaven. Do not be tempted to think of Heaven as completely spiritual and void of all matter. It is in many ways a physical place with physical bodies, physical food and physical houses.

If you are interested in further study, I highly recommend:
Heaven - Randy Alcorn
It smashes many of the myths that Christians (and thus popular culture) have developed over the centuries regarding heaven by examining the bible over traditional stories.

u/kingpatzer · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I believe in the reality of the possibility, but I have a hope based in a merciful God that it is not actualized.

Basically, my answer is go read your von Balthasar

u/Gunnar_Grautnes · 3 pointsr/changemyview

>This leads me to two possible conclusions:

  1. Christianity is not true.
  2. Christianity is true, but being a Christian is not required to go to Heaven. It is more about being a good person that gets you to heaven. And you don't need religion to be a good person. This verse possibly backs it up: John 3:17 - "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." If belief in Christianity was required, the vast majority of the world's population that lived from 30 AD to 2018 would go to Hell. Sounds like condemning the world from a cruel God. Not saving the world from a loving God.

    These options do not seem exhaustive. For example, it could (logically) be the case that all people go to heaven, not just the ones who lived good lives on earth. You find individual thinkers and traditions throughout the history of Christianity that have endorsed or entertained this option, including in antiquity Origen and in the modern day John Hick. Prominent Catholic theologian (with an awesome name) Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a famous book on the issue: https://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070

    As for the second option, this is one that has been very seriously entertained by Christians at various points. One of the most important documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was the Lumen Gentium. (Not to be confused with the Lumen from The Strain) Lumen Gentium declares that:

    >Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    (Lumen Gentium can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html )

    This is also an issue that many protestant theologians have thought seriously about. (Although until at least the 17th century, the official Lutheran position was that all people had heard the Gospel, since Jesus in Acts says to the disciples that "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8) ) There have been various proposals from more or less serious theologians, such as that Jesus during the three days spent with the dead preached to them, thus offering a path to salvation by hearing the gospel to those already dead.

    >If belief in Christianity was required, the vast majority of the world's population that lived from 30 AD to 2018 would go to Hell.

    Those who view belief in Christianity as required tend also to view going to hell as the default option for members of a sinful humanity. That is, to them, the alternative to Christianity would not be everybody going to heaven, but everybody going to hell. As such, the scenario you describe definitely seems preferable, even as the best of two really bad scenarios for humanity.

    >If Christianity is not required, then what is the point of being a Christian? If it is easy, if you enjoy being Christian, then no problem. But what if it is hard? Your motivation begins to fade once you realize it is not required.

    You seem to assume that the only viable motivation for being a Christian is the expectation of hedonist rewards. Pleasure is not the only reason to do things, and it is not the only goal with which we act in our everyday lives. For example, there is the goal of truth. If the doctrines of Christianity are true, then that should by itself be a reason to believe them. Another reason might be gratitude. If God has created a world where everyone goes to heaven, then that seems to be a pretty good reason to display (authentic) gratitude towards God. Following God's commands and worshipping God seems to be pretty good ways of expressing such gratitude. I'm sure there are many other potential reasons.
u/red_cabbage947 · 3 pointsr/TrueChristian

I’m not convinced homosexuality is a choice. I know this isn’t really an answer to your question, but this book does a really good job of exploring Christianity coexisting with homosexuality.

Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate https://www.amazon.com/dp/1455514306/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hHDJAbJM7A1FQ

u/biodecus · 3 pointsr/Buddhism

Padmakara Translation Group revised edition for the translation: https://www.amazon.com/Way-Bodhisattva-Bodhicaryavatara-Shambhala-Classics/dp/1590303881/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518685960&sr=1-1&keywords=bodhisattva


The Nectar of Manjushri's Speech for a traditional and detailed commentary https://www.amazon.com/Nectar-Manjushris-Speech-Shantidevas-Bodhisattva-ebook/dp/B005LQYQJO/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518685934&sr=1-5


If you want a lighter commentary maybe the Dalai Lama's, or Pema Chodron's.

Ringu Tulku Rinpoche also has a great video series/course on it: https://bodhicharya.org/teachings/courses/bodhicharyavatara/

u/semi__colon · 3 pointsr/OpenChristian

Like yourself, I am an ally. I, too, found it to be a huge weight in my attempt to "be a good Christian" and also recognize that homosexuality is not a sin. I'm a feminist as well, but because I haven't done my Bible research yet regarding feminism, I'm going to keep to my own experience with homosexuality and the like.

From my own my own experiences, I feel that you have two major options in order to reconcile your faith and your convictions - two options in which God will support you and guide you in whatever you choose.

The first might be to find another church, another denomination, or both. Some churches still oppose homosexuality, but are much less aggressive, meaning that you get the occasional "homosexuality is a sin," but who are much more respectful of it. This is the type of church I attend. And while their stance is annoying, they actually manage to discuss it in a loving manner so that I can tolerate it. There are also churches who are completely open to the LGBT community. Times are changing, albeit slowly.

Your second option, and probably the most terrifying one, would be to "come out" to your community. One of the problems (IMO) with the "homosexuality is a sin" stance is that they don't know any better! Some people have lived in this bubble all their life. They don't know any differently, and haven't heard the Biblically sound evidence that it isn't wrong. You don't have to start protesting sermons or get a soapbox. But it could start with "I don't agree with that, can we please stop talking about it?" A simple phrase like this almost sounds like you aren't helping by not talking about it, but it can begin to open their hearts and minds to the idea of questions and discussion. In this scenario, knowledge is power; I've suggested this book before, and I'll suggest it again. By knowing and confirming your own beliefs on a very fundamental and Biblical level, I think it will help you navigate any discussion regarding the LGBT community and their place in the church.

u/kubbiember · 3 pointsr/AmazonFlexDrivers

God is Disapointed in you for posting this picture


edit: the book in the passenger seat

u/metanat · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I got kind of lazy with the links, but anyways here is my collection of Christianity related books, links etc.

Listening:

u/DumDumDog · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

i cut and pasted this from nuke the pope i will give a link to it at the bottem ...


>I'm just reading John Loftus' The Christian Delusion, a collection of experts' essays challenging various bits of Christian doctrine. I've just started on chapter 14, where Hector Avalos refutes Dinesh D'Souza's claptrap about Hitler & Co. (is that what's in your video? I can't watch it right now).

>There's some controversy about Hitler's personal views, though those are not nearly as important as the views he espoused in public. So Avalos basically ignores those, whatever they may have been, and instead explains how many centuries of Church-propagated anti-Semitism contributed most significantly to the Holocaust. A couple of pages beyond where I've read, he apparently also demolishes the silly claims about Hitler and Darwinism as engines of genocide. Instead, from what I've briefly skimmed, he points to the Bible as a strong precedent for and proposition of genocide.

>I'm already past Avalos' brief mention of Stalin. His mass murders arguably had nothing to do with atheism, but with enforced collectivization - those who refused to submit to the collective "for the greater good" had to be eliminated. Ironically, the move toward collectivization parallels that found in the Bible and preached by Jesus. Avalos quotes a passage where a man and woman are killed for failing to participate in the collective. Today we condemn the idea that the collective is more important than the lives of human beings, but the Bible actually propagates it. I've been meaning to follow a reference Avalos makes where he says that recent document finds have actually exposed participation and complicity of the Eastern Church in Stalin's operations toward collectivization. It's really amazing how religion tends to show up behind many activities we consider evil!

He also points out that the "numbers games" Christians like to play with regard to numbers killed is petty and meaningless. Christianity may point out that "only" 100,000 witches were burnt in the Dark Ages, while WW2 killed 10 million. Some counter arguments:

  • If Hitler had only killed 100,000 and the Church 10 million, would that make Hitler's mass murders OK? I think we can agree to abhor both.
  • Should we exculpate the Church for not being able to get their hands on more victims? There were simply not more than 100,000 "witches" to be found in Dark Age Europe, and if there had been more then Christianity would surely have killed more. What's much more significant is that they tried to kill 100% of all witches/heretics/whatever . Or should we say Hitler wasn't so bad because he only managed to get his hands on about 50% of all Jews?

    For whatever it's worth, when someone insists on arguing numbers, I point out that the Christianization of Europe alone cost an estimated 8 million lives; the 30 Years War (between Catholicism and Protestantism) wiped out a third of Germany's population (+ more elsewhere)... and these numbers are all the more impressive because there simply weren't that many people around in those times. But for those folks arguing about genocides "under the banner of atheism" I point to the Spanish, Portugese and other "conquistadores" who invaded the Americas and wiped out much of the population of these two continents, with estimates (as looked up in Wikipedia) ranging as high as 200 million. You folks sure you want to play this game? ;)



    here is the link http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/h5hro/hitler_stalin_mao_pol_pot_blah_blah_blah/c1sqjqs


u/NukeThePope · 3 pointsr/atheism

No... there are other, far more effective psychological reasons for following religions. John Loftus' book The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails explains it pretty well in the first three chapters or so, written by atheist expert anthropologists and psychologists.

u/Panta-rhei · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Any of Bonhoeffer's works would be good. His Cost of Discipleship is excellent.

If you're up for some listening, Philip Cary's Luther: Law, Gospel, and Reformation lecture series is an excellent introduction to Lutheran thought and practice. Every once in a while it's on sale, and well worth picking up.

u/newBreed · 2 pointsr/Catacombs

First and foremost, read books that will nourish your soul. If you are not being fed by the Bible and other books, your soul can shrivel and you'll be of no help to anyone.

Get The Pastor: A Memoir and The Contemplative Pastor by Eugene Peterson. This guy can flat out write. I'd also second the Keller votes and put Francis Chan on the list, especially The Forgotten God. Also, the last one I'll put is The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Hardcore stuff there.

u/seeing_the_light · 2 pointsr/Christianity

If you are planning on writing a book on prayer, I would recommend this, this and this, for the Orthodox perspective.

u/jtalexanderiv · 2 pointsr/Christianity
u/kingnemo · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I'll throw Randy Alcorn's Heaven in the mix. Its a little long winded and has a candid evangelical slant but his attitude agrees with you, if not all of his theology. He emphasizes stewardship as well as pointing out there will be work to do when heaven comes to earth. It won't be all harps, clouds and singing songs.

u/MojoPin83 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Part 3: Book recommendations:

If you want to dig deep into this topic, here are some book recommendations. Perhaps you would want to read N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series (this is very heavy, scholarly reading). N.T. Wright is the foremost scholar on the New Testament and this is possibly the most thorough literature on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and the Apostle Paul:

https://www.logos.com/product/37361/christian-origins-and-the-question-of-god-series

Anything by N.T. Wright is well worth reading (Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope would be good introductions). Likewise, anything by Ravi Zacharias.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Nabeel-Qureshi/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANabeel%20Qureshi

No God But One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517050609&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ANabeel+Qureshi

On Guard by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.ca/Guard-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1434764885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526542104&sr=8-1&keywords=on+guard+william+lane+craig

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

Bonus reading: Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526542237&sr=1-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.ca/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

Read anything by G.K. Chesterton, especially, The Everlasting Man


Answers to Common Objections and Questions:

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/

The Evidence for Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity's Centerpiece: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_as_Christianitys_Centerpiece_FullArticle?fbclid=IwAR0oE22vtBvR2u--R78tSyW-51OpIbWBfWDNH2Ep8miBc9W6uUJMwMsz0yk

Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/

Accompanying video to the link above: Why is Christianity True?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qJPZySo7A

How Do You Know Christianity Is the One True Way of Living? | Abdu Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ze_SVg-0E&app=desktop

What makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions? Verifiability is a Christian Distinctive: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/verifiability-is-a-christian-distinctive/

Is Jesus God? (Feat. Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Licona, Qureshi...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLoKCyDDAg&app=desktop

How Can Understanding Eyewitness Testimony Help Us Evaluate the Gospels?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCDDsPXQSQ&app=desktop

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection - Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? - Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD7w1Uja2o

‪Questioning Jesus: Critically Considering Christian Claims with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi‬: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpuEDp4ObA

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014 | William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s&app=desktop

Historical Resurrection of Christ?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Dc01HVlaM

‪Are The New Testament Documents Historically Credible?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgdsIaqFAp4

Are the Gospels Accurate?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrDy_G8h88

(Answer to the common objection: ‘the gospels are anonymous’)
Gospel Authorship—Who Cares?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/gospel-authorshipwho-cares

What is the Evidence That Jesus Appeared Alive After His Death?: https://youtu.be/96WIa3pZISE

On Extra-Biblical Sources for Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances: https://youtu.be/-Dbx7PPIIsQ

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Or Was It A Hoax By His Followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELRKdxV7Wk

Follow up to the previous video: ‪Did Jesus rise from the dead, or was it hallucinations by his followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29224I3x_M0&feature=youtu.be

Did the Disciples Invent the Resurrection?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOHUWsNDPZc

‬Facts to show the Resurrection is not fiction, by William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AduPVkqbis

‬Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNdynwqtWI&t

What Do You Mean By ‘Literal?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk

Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection: https://youtu.be/4iyxR8uE9GQ?t=1s

Death, Resurrection and Afterlife: https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4?t=1s

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?: https://youtu.be/KnkNKIJ_dnw?t=1s

4 Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Really Did Rise From The Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4

‪What About Pre-Christ Resurrection Myths?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrCYVk6xrXg

Jesus and Pagan Mythology: Is Jesus A Copied Myth or Real Person?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/

Zeitgeist - Is Jesus A Myth: https://alwaysbeready.com/zeitgeist-the-movie

Did Greco-Roman myths influence the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pt9rlG7ABo&app=desktop

‪Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo

Moral Argument For God’s Existence: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Does Life Have Meaning?: https://youtu.be/it7mhQ8fEq0

‪Are there Inconsistencies Between the Four Gospels?: https://youtu.be/sgdsIaqFAp4

‪Why Are There Differences in the Resurrection Accounts?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz2lVGmXFI

Don't the Gospels Contradict One Another?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt9kCwttVY

Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimP8m3_hCk

Why the Gospels Can Differ, Yet Still Be Reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5wU2hxIfM

Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new-testament-gospels-are-reliable/

Find Contradictions in the Bible All You Want: https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2019/05/apologetics-find-contradictions-in-the-bible-all-you-want.html

The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/

Bart Ehrman is one of the world's most renowned ancient historians/New Testament scholars, and he is an atheist. Listen to what he has to say on the matter of Jesus' existence: ‪The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww

Bart D Ehrman About the Historical Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U6TJ4cwSo

Extra-Biblical evidence: In addition to the gospel accounts and the letters from the Apostle Paul, we have sources outside the New Testament with references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, etc:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Is There Extrabiblical Evidence About Jesus' Life?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U&app=desktop

How do we know Jesus was really who he said he was?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksvhHEoMLM&app=desktop


YouTube Channels to browse:

William Lane Craig - ReasonableFaithOrg: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg?app=desktop

drcraigvideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos?app=desktop

Ravi Zacharias - Ravi Zacharias International Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia?app=desktop

J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace: https://www.youtube.com/user/pleaseconvinceme/featured?disable_polymer=1

The Bible Project: https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject

Unbelievable?: https://www.youtube.com/user/PremierUnbelievable

David Wood - Acts17Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

Nabeel Qureshi - NQMinistries: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepxnLs6GWAxAyI8m2U9s7A/featured?disable_polymer=1

Randy Alcorn - Eternal Perspective Ministries with Randy Alcorn: https://www.youtube.com/user/eternalperspectives?app=desktop

Frank Turek - Cross Examined: https://www.youtube.com/user/TurekVideo

Brian Holdsworth: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdsworthdesign

u/dogpetterUSA · 2 pointsr/Christianity
u/ConclusivePostscript · 2 pointsr/Existentialism

> Why this one instead of any other one?

For starters, Kierkegaard sees the uniqueness of the incarnational narrative: God entering time in abject humility, the Almighty disarming the powers of this world through enacting powerlessness. See especially Practice in Christianity.

> I had a friend die who was Jewish

I’m sorry for your loss.

> and Christianity teaches that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ suffers eternal damnation.

Doctrinally, though, there is nothing inherent to Christianity that commits us to pre-mortem incorporation into Christ. Some Christians have maintained that God may grant some or all nonbelievers a clarifying vision between death and the general resurrection. Others have espoused a view of ‘implicit faith’, so that some nonbelievers are already part of the Church without knowing it, confessing it, etc. Still others hold a universalist position, or at least maintain that it is rational to hope for a universalist conclusion.

u/hobbitsden · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

> Sorry again for the delay and length of the response, that was a pretty dense article for somebody who has been out of the game for a while.

Forgive me but your nihilist flair and admission of a Protestant past makes me ask for some clarification: Do you have a problem with the Catholic view and/or Protestant view of predestination? Is such doctrine a reason your now identify as a nihilist? I took a long journey like that in the past.

I once read a book titled: Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell. I thought it was a good but difficult read and may enlighten you further if this is a huge stumbling block for you.

Looking at some of your responses to others the crux of the matter seems to be; if/why God saves some and not all is incompatible with an all loving/knowing...;? I am not sure what you are after as a nihilist but it seems clear Catholics and Protestants look at predestination very differently. I have never thought of my or anyone's salvation as predestined. I/all must cooperate with grace and mercy. If I (anyone) fail or refuse to cooperate I am assured of nothing despite my Baptism or lack thereof.

The only references to conditional predestination I have come across in Catholic theology that I can think of is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the last of the 15 promises of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One destination is hell and the other is heaven, but both are still conditional to an act of will on our part.

There was a Polish Catholic nun who died in 1938 at the age of 33 from tuberculosis; she had mystical visions of heaven, and she records in her diary visions and conversations with Jesus.

> 1728

> Write: I am Thrice Holy, and detest the smallest sin. I cannot love a soul which is stained with sin; but when it repents, there is no limit to My generosity toward it. My mercy embraces and justifies it. With My mercy, I pursue sinners along all their paths, and My Heart rejoices when they return to Me. I forget the bitterness with which they fed My Heart and rejoice at their return.

> Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart…. When will it beat for Me?

> Write, that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failures and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want.

God wants all souls to be saved but we have a part to play in our salvation.

> A Certain Moment, May 12, 1935

> 424

> In the evening, I just about got into bed, and I fell asleep immediately. Though I fell asleep quickly, I was awakened even more quickly. A little child came and woke me up. The child seemed about a year old, and I was surprised it could speak so well, as children of that age either do not speak or speak very indistinctly. The child was beautiful beyond words and resembled the Child Jesus, and he said to me, Look at the sky. And when I looked at the sky I saw the stars and the moon shining. Then the child asked me, Do you see this moon and these stars? When I said yes, he spoke these words to me, These stars are the souls of faithful Christians, and the moon is the souls of religious. Do you see how great the difference is between the light of the moon and the light of the stars? Such is the difference in heaven between the soul of a religious and the soul of a faithful Christian. And he went on to say that, True greatness is in loving God and in humility.

> 425

> Then I saw a soul which was being separated from its body amid great torment. O Jesus, as I am about to write this, I tremble at the sight of the horrible things that bear witness against him….. I saw the souls of little children and those of older ones, about nine years of age, emerging from some kind of a muddy abyss. The souls were foul and disgusting, resembling the most terrible monsters and decaying corpses. But the corpses were living and gave loud testimony against the dying soul. And the soul I saw dying was a soul full of the world‟s applause and honors, the end of which are emptiness and sin. Finally a woman came out who was holding something like tears in her apron, and she witnessed very strongly against him.

> 426

> O terrible hour, at which one is obliged to see all one‟s deeds in their nakedness and misery; not one of them is lost, they will all accompany us to God‟s judgment. I can find no words or comparisons to express such terrible things. And although it seems to me that this soul is not damned, nevertheless its torments are in no way different from the torments of hell; there is only this difference: that they will someday come to an end.

> 427

> A moment later, I again saw the child who had awakened me. It was of wondrous beauty and repeated these words to me, True greatness of the soul is in loving God and in humility. I asked the child, “How do you know that true greatness of the soul is in loving God and in humility? Only theologians know about such things and you haven‟t even learned the catechism. So how do you know?” To this He answered, I know; I know all things. And with that, He disappeared.

> 428

> But I could no longer get to sleep; my mind became exhausted by thinking about the things I had seen. O human souls, how late you learn the truth! O abyss of God‟s mercy, pour yourself out as quickly as possible over the whole world, according to what You Yourself have said.

> 741

> Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:...I, Sister Faustina, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence....But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell. When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God‟s mercy upon them. O my Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend You by the least sin.

  • 741
u/bblasnalus · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?
http://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070

It has some of the longest sentences I have ever read and is pretty deep from my view but it is a good book for thought on the subject.

u/phrakture · 2 pointsr/books

Does this count?

u/nidoking · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/Swiftshirt · 2 pointsr/daddit

My wife and I have found the principles and techniques in Love and Logic to be very helpful. I'm sure you would find it helpful for the types of attitudes and behaviors you mention.

Parenting With Love And Logic (Updated and Expanded Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1576839540/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_yZWJybQKVN22A

u/superconductingself · 2 pointsr/INTP

I may have reacted strongly to some things he said (he did not waste time and immediately reacted aggressively to me as well amiright?). I'll explain why I reacted quickly and strongly.

I didn't appreciate his posting a parenting program. I didn't consider it relevant to the discussion and as an exChristian with family members high up in the church I know that these ARE tools used to prosthelytise and convert people to religion (I watched family members try tactics like these, including opening a religious preschool so they could teach the kids to go home and since Jesus songs to their parents) or to promote essentially religious right views of the family and world views. They are based on a particular philosophical belief system and that affects the things that they say and the parenting advice that they give.

The program he is promoting is a religiously based parenting program. In that sense this is similar to the one that the Sears promote called "Attachment Parenting" (Attachment Parenting for instance encourages mothers to not work but stay home so they can attachment parent all day long, and this fits with the conservative Christian idea of women not being too independent or working outside of the home) and also similar to Babywise (which was found to cause failure to thrive syndrome in children and promotes hitting very young babies and teaching them that the parent is in charge. This idea of disciplining young babies comes out of theology because many Christians believe that people have original sin so even babies are born sinful, and you have to discipline the sin our of your children. Babywise was basically "Growing Kids God's Way" and they took out all the references to God and repackaged it but it still was based on theology not science. To an unknowing person, Babywise looked fairly innocuous and scientific at first glance). This program is likely to be similar (in spite of being marketed as "Love and Logic") in that it comes at least partly out of a religious rather than scientific worldview and mindset and its directions and advice will promote that. I don't think that this program is necessarily similarly abusive but I think that it is worth being aware of how these philosophical underpinnings influence a program's parenting advice, and can advance a particular view of the world and family and to some extent particular political views.

THAT is why I reacted strongly to what he said. I wasn't happy about seeing a recommendation for a non scientifically grounded parenting program like that and particularly not in an unsolicited way. By all means if you or others are interested in the parenting programs go ahead and explore keeping in mind what I pointed out.

And most people on here probably do not realize nor are aware of the things I pointed out above, we generally are not manipulative towards others and so we do not easily spot manipulation in others, but please stop and think about what I said for a few minutes.

> ninja edit: After reading your post history I can sympathize with some of the things you're going through. Making judgments about other redditor's parenting skills from a single comment or assuming there are hidden motivations or trying to imply someone isn't really an INTP... you're coming across as aggressive.

I hope that now that I have explained myself you understand better where I am coming from. I did respond aggressively because I wasn't happy due to the reasons I mentioned above but I hope you understand why now. There is also no reason to read into my intentions or personal situation or psychoanalyze me. As you can see my particular personal situation which you may have read about isn't necessarily the reason I found that recommendation worrying. Just as you read into my posting history and found cause for empathy he may also have read into my posting history and been triggered to swear at me.

Take a look at the reviews on here:
http://www.amazon.ca/Parenting-Love-Logic-Teaching-Responsibility/dp/1576839540

u/Rhine_around_Worms · 2 pointsr/daddit

I didn't read through all of it, but from skimming over it I think you may be interested in some of these (you didn't say what age your kids were so I'm just giving you everything I know of):

  • Any books/documentaries on the Summerhill School (A. S. Neill's school)

  • Anything about Peaceful Parenting. Such as Parenting With Love And Logic.

  • Stefan Molyneux's parenting videos

  • Resources for Infant Educarers books and blogs, such as Janet Lansbury's blog, Your Self-Confident Baby.

  • Any Montessori books

    These are all about respecting your child, seeing them as a capable human being, and including them in the family.
u/BearJew13 · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

Lot of great Therevadan book recommendations, but if you're interested in Mahayana Buddhism, or the Bodhisattva Ideal in particular, then I recommend the following books:

 

The Way of the Bodhisattva - This is a classic Mahayana text that explains in full detail the path of the Bodhisattva. I also recommend the Dalai Lama's commentary on this text.

 

Lastly, for good intro to Buddhism books from a Mahayana perspective, I recommend the Dalai Lama's Becoming Enlightened and Lama Surya Das's Awakening the Buddha Within

u/Elijah_Silva · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

Beautiful quote :-)

As a reference, it was Shantideva who wrote this in the The Way of the Bodhisattva (Bodhicharyavatara)

u/EarwormsRUs · 2 pointsr/Meditation

Compassion. Thankfulness (for having been met with the concepts of mindfulness/right speech). Patience.

"Thus, when enemies or friends,
Are seen to act improperly,
Remain serene and call to mind
That everything arises from conditions"


The above is just one nugget from Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva
. (Chapter 6 "Patience" verse 33.)

http://grooveshark.com/#!/search?q=shantideva

u/KarthusWins · 2 pointsr/LGBTeens

My coming out experience was much more... sad.

We were coming home from church, after the pastor gave an ignorant schpeel about homosexuals that had little to no reflection on what the Bible really says. Usually I was able to deflect the anti-gay message whenever it came up, but that day was different. After being tortured by the pastor's harsh words, I felt like utter shit and just wanted to cry myself to sleep at home.

But... my brother wanted In-N-Out, so my mom drove us all the way there. I said I wasn't hungry, because I had lost my appetite and was feeling very depressed. My mom knew something was up at that point since I always got In-N-Out when it was an option. I ended up ordering a double-double with no cheese to quell her suspicions temporarily.

Once the car pulled into the garage, I got out and walked inside to my room. I shut the door and started to bawl my eyes out. I heard my mom asking where I went from the hallway, and she eventually opened my door to find me in a ball on my bed, a complete mess.

The next two hours were spent with me sobbing uncontrollably while slowly picking away at my burger. I explained everything to my mom, and she was more than accepting. My brother on the other hand seemed to be grossed out and didn't talk to me for the rest of the night.

In the end, my entire family has learned more about what the Bible really says about homosexuality, and they are very supportive of me. Even my brother, who was initially disturbed by the notion of his brother being gay, came around and told me that he loves who I am.

I would just like to recommend some very good books for people who are fighting between maintaining their Christian identity while staying true to who they are as LGBT. You don't need to throw away your faith.

What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak

God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines

UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question by John Shore

u/gnurdette · 2 pointsr/OpenChristian

Two well-argued pieces by gay Christians at http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php. One believes in marriage, one in mandatory celibacy, but the important thing is that they're both sincere gay Christians.

And hopefully you'll read God and the Gay Christian.

But don't stick to reading webpages and books. Get into an a supportive church of flesh-and-blood Christians.

Then give yourself time to process the thoughts and pray. You'll be OK. God bless you!

u/Aussie-Nerd · 2 pointsr/atheism

Aside:

If people don't want to, or find the Bible hard to read - a good alternative is "God is Disappointed In You". It's a humourous abridged but somewhat accurate version of the Bible. Amazon link.

I own it and love it. Whilst I did read the Bible mostly cover to cover a few years ago (skipped the genealogy), this comedy version is a great refresher.

u/crackpipecardozo · 2 pointsr/exchristian

You might want to check this out (especially the audio book narrated by James Urbaniak) :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1603090983/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

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/rpeg · 2 pointsr/atheism

I think there's a failure for many people to view religion anthropologically. Study the history of religions. Learn about religions in other places. You quickly realize there are as many religions out there as there are opinions.

The Christian Delusion has a great chapter about culture and Christianity:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689

I believe anthropology can also inform us on the subject of religion. Not just science alone.

u/the_sleep_of_reason · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

>1) How do we explain that we all seem to know what is right and wrong? Why do we believe that being a human entitles someone to rights?

Evolved Morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/#EvoBioDebMor

 

>2) Why do we all look for and want meaning if this is a meaningless world?

Again, evolution.

We are hardwired to find meaning where there may be one because at some point it was advantageous to our survival.

 

>3) How can we know what is true? If our brains have evolved to ensure our survival and not necessarily tell us what is true... how can we be sure of anything?

The thing is that "being right" is part of the survival process. Or at least it became a part of the survival process at some stage. And since we know that we as humans are prone to making errors we have taken steps to doublecheck our beliefs to make sure that they are true (or at least that they map to reality).

 

>4) How do you as an atheist defend the fine-tuning argument? The chances of a world existing with life, even existing at all, is incredibly low. Did we really just get extremely lucky?

I personally dont defend the fine-tuning argument, I reject it for multiple reasons.

First of all, its proponents assume that the constants we see today could be different, but there is no real proof of that.

Second, even if they were indeed different that does not mean that life would be impossible. Life in the form as we know it may be impossible, but other forms could still arise.
http://web.uni-plovdiv.bg/marta/life_in_the_multiverse.pdf ignore the multiverse part, focus on the fact that even completely removing the weak nuclear force would still allow for the universe to form

 

>5) What do you think is the best argument against Christianity? Can you recommend any good literature that argues for atheism? I am not sure if Dawkins and Sam Harris books are any good or not. Looking for more honest/less biased writers.

Tough question.

For general overview of theistic arguments and why they all fail in one form or another I would recommend John Shook - The God Debates

For a bit more specific arguments against Christianity I would probably go for Loftus (although he can be a dick sometimes imo) Why I became an Atheist and The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Loftus is a former preacher and apologiest so he has really good insight into Christianity. Think Matt Dillahunty, but this one writes books. And has a huge ego :P

u/transmogrification · 2 pointsr/exmormon

That Jesus was just another failed Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

Read about a book full of such things in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

u/TheFeshy · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

> I believe there is a God

> I believe he has communicated with people

Does your evidence for these two claims pass the outsider test for faith? That is, if someone else presented you with this evidence for a faith other than your own, would you believe in that faith? I find this question is easier with a faith that no one believes in, so here's an example:

Someone comes up to you and claims that Elvis wasn't human, is alive, and communicates with people. He presents you with evidence equivalent to the evidence you use to justify your beliefs in God and his communication (old book, many other believers, feels Elvis's presence in their life, people have suffered for their belief, just the right song at just the right moment, "prime rocker" argument, whatever it is that reinforces your belief.) Do you now believe Elvis is a nonhuman entity who still lives and communicates with people? Or do you doubt some or all of that claim?

u/fqrh · 2 pointsr/BettermentBookClub

>This year, I made it my mission to understand and implement the teachings of Napoleon Hill and then teach it to others.

You left out the part between implementing it and teaching it to others where you confirm that it works. You seem committed to teaching it to others before you have observed personally that it works, so your plan might lead to you spreading lies.

Napoleon Hill's belief system is a type of magic, that is, claims about cause and effect without any plausible mechanism that could really connect them. "Magic Ladder to Success" literally has "Magic" in the title. Magical thinking is considered a sign of psychosis. The problem with magical thinking it is that it is a-priori implausible; it is structured in a way that discourages doing systematic experiments; and it is structured in a way that disrupts the objectivity of the person doing it so they are not in a position to determine whether it is true or false.

Religions are fundamentally about doing magic. No one religious belief has a majority, so most believers in magic are wrong. The evidence is also consistent with all of them being wrong. If you're going to work in this area, you have to be very clear how you are doing something different from the other magic users, since most of them are wrong.

If you learn to do magic, that's great. Figure out how to do experiments with it, publish a physics paper proving that it works, and get a Nobel prize. Many parapsychologists have failed before you.

It is irrational to put a large fraction of one's wealth into a risky investment even when that investment has expected positive return. Therefore you want to have a huge pile of money, or a large group of financially supportive people who are not concurrently experimenting with the same type of magic, before you start. If you aren't up to trying something that risky, don't bother trying to do magic.

u/TheNaturalMan · 2 pointsr/exmormon

The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.

"Do unto your own faith what you do to other faiths." Apply the same skepticism to your own beliefs as you do to the beliefs of other faiths.

edit: added link

u/RockHat · 2 pointsr/exmormon

Couple things here.

You're describing the same idea as what John W. Loftus called the Outsider Test for Faith: “Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating."

Your former missionary companion seems to be applying Pascal's Wager to Mormonism, without realizing that if Pascal was right to propose this, that means Mormonism had to be false (since Pascal was a Christian, which is at odds with Mormonism). But Pascal was wrong.

Pascal's Wager fails to tell us which God is the right one, and it certainly does not tell us how to please this Being. For all he knows, God gave man reason and then hid Himself from man to test them to see if they would use the reason God gave them to conclude God doesn't exist, thus freeing mankind to develop moral frameworks based in reason, which would please this God. So in this scenario God would reward atheists and punish theists for their rejection of God's gift of reason in favor of faith. Another scenario is that the true God is not known to anyone on Earth and whenever people worship another God it just makes the true God angrier and angrier.

There's also the minor point that if God requires belief then the person using Pascal's Wager isn't providing a genuine faith, but is trying to game the system to cover their own ass "just in case." I doubt God, if such a being existed, would take kindly to this approach since people are trying to use a false faith to trick God into rewarding them for their feigned commitment.

Plus, there is a real downside. Sure, we will all eventually become worm food but between now and then we can either be prisoners to a false religion or live free to achieve our best life. So wasting the one life you've got for a what-if religion is not a costless gamble.

u/CubingTheSphere · 2 pointsr/exmormon

You pretty much came to the outsider test for faith on your own. Well done!

u/austac06 · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

You question wouldn't happen to have been inspired by this book would it?

u/deMondo · 2 pointsr/atheism

You might start here for more tools that you and your family can use to understand where you are.

https://smile.amazon.com/Outsider-Test-Faith-Which-Religion/dp/1616147377?sa-no-redirect=1

Good luck.

u/raznog · 2 pointsr/evolution

First to your question about what I understand to be the evolution theory. From what I understand everything started from a single life form and grew from there. The growing was done based on an algorithm of small random changes where the 'good' changes meant more survivability which caused those ' 'good' mutations' to produce more offspring. Which then carried further into the future to what we see now.

Also to start it wouldn't be to 'change' my mind for my mind isn't made up yet. I am willing to accept the evolution theory as a well thought out solid theory for the type of life we see now. But as far as saying it is 100% true I have not seen any proof on that. The information I do find says it cannot be proved. Yet, I keep hearing on reddit about how it has been 'proven'. From what I can tell it seems like it is held as the most likely scenario.

Now about the God questions that is on a completely different topic but I would be happy to answer. Though as I have said I do not think that creation from God and the Evolution theory as being mutually exclusive as many think it is.

First I would say if you are really curious about christianity to read
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is an incredible logical look at christianity and how he worked his way through believing in God.

















u/ComeHereOften7 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

[This] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345270283&sr=8-1&keywords=mere+christianity) changed my life, upon reading in a doubtful time, it was as if everything I had ever felt in Christianity manifested into words.

u/app01 · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Sorry it has taken me a little while to respond. It seems that in many of my discussions with people over evidences for Christianity, we disagree strongly on what counts as evidence. I am curious, do you think that evidence is subjective? Can something be evidence for me and not for you?

Thanks for responding to my points. Let me give some responses to your pushback

  1. You can disagree with me about the supposed accuracy of the gospels. I agree this subject has been extensively written on and discussed from both sides. Again if you are interested in a scholarly defense of the gospels, I would point you to The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

    As to your statement,

    > accuracy is no measure of truth

    I am not really sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean that the gospels accuracy is representing the life and words of Jesus does not mean that what Jesus says and later interpretations of his acts and words were true, then I agree. However, if the gospels are accurate in representing Jesus life and death, then the empty tomb and reported resurrection must be accounted for.

  2. Again we might not be using the term evidence in the same way.

    > Why does that rise to the standard of evidence? That would mean there is no other possible > explanation of events, other than his actual resurrection, right?

    I have yet to hear another explanation of the empty tomb, the reported sightings by the disciples and followers of Jesus and the uniform pronouncement of the early church as to the bodily resurrection of Jesus which is a alternate viable alternative. I would recommend The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright if you are interested in further reading in this area.

  3. Humans are capably of incredible good and selfless acts, but also capable of intense acts of evil. I believe that are natural bent is toward selfish behavior which is naturally evil. Look at a two or three year old and you will see the natural ego-centric and selfish behavior towards which human behavior is inclined. Christianity provides a viable explanation for why this is true of humans and accounts for the existence of evil.

    Beyond that point, the existence of a category which we call evil demands an external standard by which good and evil can be measured. A moral law demands a moral law giver. See Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

  4. By no means am I trying to use the argument, "I don't believe in evolution, therefore God exists." That would be a vast over simplification and a terrible argument. I would identify myself as a proponent of some form of Theistic Evolution. However, I don't think that evolutionary theory has provided a satisfactory answer to the origin of the universe. How did it start? Why is something here instead of nothing?

  5. Again, I am not making the claim that "Something is happening, therefore God exists." I am simply saying that transformed lives are an evidence of something happening in that persons life which needs to be accounted for. You can appeal to drugs, social pressures, etc.. but it must be accounted for somehow.

    I hope this provides some clarifications. Also, I am listed many books as references. I would be happy to read (or at least skim) anything which you would recommend in this area.
u/mlbontbs87 · 2 pointsr/dankchristianmemes

I wish you would've put a question mark at the end, because then I could've assumed that you weren't being condescending (correct me if I'm wrong, I hope you aren't trying to be condescending).

So here is the thing - God wrote his law into nature. We know it intuitively. We just don't follow it because we think we know better. This is true if you are in the Bible belt or some isolated tribe in the amazon. People tend to be pretty comfortable living this way, because that little pang of conscience we get when we sin gets smaller and ^smaller ^and ^^smaller. What people don't get about heaven and hell though is that for those who are comfortable in their sins, whether they be sexual promiscuity, or greed, or arrogance, or whatever, heaven is a very unpleasant place. Without some pretty major, invasive transformation, no one would enjoy being there, because the lies we tell ourselves about how we are good people become painfully obvious. Every time in the Bible that someone apprehends God in his glory, they fall down in stark terror. We need to be cleansed in order to enjoy the pleasures of God.

So, every day, that isolated tribesman has a choice. Does he live a life of moral perfection? Or does he compare himself against others, decide he's not that bad, and live life for himself? Invariably he chooses to do the latter, and every time that is a choice against the salvation that you say he is doomed to miss. But here is the thing - he wouldn't want that salvation. None of us do. The conversion from nonchristian to saint in heaven is very long and painful, and there isn't a single person who would want to arrive at that destination if asked about it before that process is started.

CS Lewis (author of the Narnia series) wrote a fascinating thought experiment on this subject, called The Great Divorce.

u/NDAugustine · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's normal to have questions. It's good you're thinking about your religion.

>1 I heard the Bible has been altered (esp. the New Testament) by people so that they can eat pork, drink occasionally, not be circumcised, etc. However, the Quran hasn't. This is why my Muslim friends are all circumcised, don't eat pork, drink, etc. Like the stuff in the Old Testament. Is there any proof that the Bible is unaltered?

The dietary laws found in the OT are strictly for the nation of Israel. Most of them come as a sort of national penance for the idolatry at Sinai and were never meant to followed by the Gentiles. God elected Israel to prepare the world to see what election is grounded in (His gratuitous love). He choose a people who were of no account to demonstrate that when He elects, He does so freely and not because we bring anything to the table. He gave Israel the law to train them so that they would learn to grow accustomed to delighting in following God.

>2 Why did Jesus die for our sins, if anything is possible?

God did not have to become man and dwell among us (John 1.14) and be crucified for our sins. It was nevertheless fitting that He did so. Why? One reason is because it shows us what sort of love God has for us. He's fully invested in His creation. He knew from eternity that when He created this place, He was going to come down here and show His love in the Incarnation and crucifixion.

The Crucifix also inverts the world's expectations about power. Adam and Eve sinned because of pride, preferring themselves to God. So Jesus comes and shows us what true humility looks like (cf. Phil. 2). He doesn't "win" by power (though He could have), but shows His creatures what it looks like to love humbly.

>3 Why does God send us, who He created, to Hell to be eternally tortured if we don't believe (believe in me or I'll torture you)? I'm trying my hardest to believe and be a good Christian, but I have so many unanswered questions and doubts that are getting in the way.

Wouldn't Heaven for someone who does not love God actually be Hell? If they don't love Him now on earth, what makes you think they would enjoy Him in Heaven? It's not a safe assumption that the person who stood before God would automatically enjoy it. God has created creatures with a will because to love Him without being able to will it would be meaningless. It would be a sort of farce on God's part. However, that means some will freely choose to reject Him. If our wills mean anything, then God respects that and doesn't force those people to love Him for eternity (which is what Heaven is). I would read CS Lewis' The Great Divorce.

>4 Will God send those people who are raised in another religion, such as in Thailand (Buddhism), who don't have any external way of being informed of Christianity (like missionaries), to be tortured forever in Hell?

Some Christians believe this is so - that you're just out of luck if you happen not to be exposed to the Gospel. Catholics are not one of those sorts and I can only speak as a Catholic. For us, we follow St. Paul's thinking in Romans 2.14-15. Paul there talks about the natural law which is imprinted on our hearts by virtue of being created in the image of God. The Catechism says that the man who searches for God in another religion and does so earnestly is somehow being prepared for the Gospel (CCC 843) because all truth and goodness come from God. We trust those souls to God's mercy and justice, knowing that He is both.

>5 Why did God put a tree of knowledge if no one could eat from it? Like He purposely put the temptation there, knowing that at least some of us will be tempted to sin, and from there, be eternally damned.

Obedience which comes from love is the mark of the Christian life. CS Lewis' Perelandra does a good job at thinking about this. Basically Lewis says that there are sometimes rules which God gives which do not have a rationale on their own except that God has asked us to follow them. So in Perelandra, the woman is not allowed to live on the fixed land simply because God has asked her not to. By following this rule, however, she grows in love for God. She grows up, understanding what obedience is.

>6 Why does sin and the possibility of being sent to Hell for eternal torture exist, if God loves us more than anything? Doesn't He know that with creating humans, a lot of them will sin?

He does, but He hasn't remained aloof from the situation. Hebrews 4.15 tells us, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." That's beautiful. Think on the Incarnation and the sheer gratuity of God's love in that act. Also see my above answer about hell.

>7 How would He judge agnostics? Like there are so many religions, and uncertainties, that some people will just gather from every religion that there is indeed a God who created us. Like people who follow basic morals like treating others well, but still do sins like, greed, lust (without rape or cheating), sodomy?

We don't know about any particular person who goes to hell. We simply trust God's goodness, His mercy, His justice, etc.

>8 Lust, masturbation, greed - why do those traits seem natural to humans, if they are sins? Like of course it's natural to look at the opposite sex and lust after them, especially when our hormones are raging.

Sin is the distortion of something good. Some women are beautiful. Recognizing their beauty isn't wrong. But sin warps our wills and desires, it warps our inclinations. Adam's and Eve's wills were in accord with their reason, but sin distorts this unity. This is why we do things (like sin) that we wish we did not (cf. Rom. 7). Neither lust, masturbation, nor greed are natural to man - they do not accord with the end for which God has created them (beatitude). Lust is an unhealthy fixation and a distortion of the natural goodness of human sexuality, which is given as a gift. Masturbation is the same - masturbation takes a gift meant for the sake of another (i.e. one's spouse) and misuses it for oneself. It takes something which is meant to be outward looking and makes it isolated. That's not what God created us for. Greed likewise is a disordered desire of goods. Any good thing we see on earth should point us to God, but greed terminates solely in created things and forgets the Creator.

I hope some of that helps.

u/OtherWisdom · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

From his about page at Amazon:

> Rodney Stark is one of the leading authorities on the sociology of religion. He grew up in Jamestown, North Dakota, where he began his career as a newspaper reporter. Following a tour of duty in the US Army, Stark received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. For many years, the Pulitzer Prize nominee was professor of sociology and professor of comparative religion at the University of Washington. In 2004 he became Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University.

His book entitled The Rise of Christianity approaches the subject from a sociological perspective. Even the book's top critical review sings his praises.

Personally, I haven't read a word from him. Now that I know a little more about him I'll check out, at least, the aforementioned book.

He doesn't seem to be an apologist but I may discover that he is after reading his book.

u/unsubinator · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Perhaps you would find this book interesting:

The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries

As for the "problems", I guess that's what this debate sub is for, right?

u/Hundiejo · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Here are a few that will get you started. Watch out for overly confessional triumphalist works.

u/zendofzwrld · 2 pointsr/askscience

Anther view on this is how diseases helped to spread Christianity in the early ages. The basic idea was how the Christian community took better care of each other and were more likely to stay behind(and alive) in the cities to take care of those who were sick. For the most part people abandoned the sick out of fear, the sick then died of malnurishment, dehydration etc. As the non Christians fled the city the percentage of Christians in these cities significantly which then raised the number of converts (people are more likely to convert whenever the majority of the people they are in contact with are Christian).

Rodney Stark writes about this fairly extensively in The Rise of Christianity A book he wrote before converting in which he was trying to explain how Christianity could go from not existing to being the official religion of Rome in a matter of ~300 years.

u/whyamiupthislate · 2 pointsr/skeptic

I found this book helpful http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435

It isn't terribly in-depth, but it helped my understand the mindset of thinking logically and seeing where fallacies lay, plus the author has a very good sense of humor which makes the book nice to read.

u/wiltscores · 2 pointsr/books

Weston's A Rulebook for Arguments is clear and concise.

Heinrichs' Thank You for Arguing is more informal with lots of pop culture references.

Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a paean to science & critical thinking and Whyte's Crimes Against Logic is good as well

u/Aesir1 · 2 pointsr/atheism

The book itself is kind of entertaining and informative, but the title is pure hyperbole. I think marketing had more to do with the title than the author. I think it is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I certainly don't advocate the intentional use of logical fallacies for persuasion. For an excellent treatment of logical fallacies used in this way, I recommend Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders.

u/aletheia · 2 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

We can know some things about God rationally. We can only know God personally.

This is how we experience all relationships. I can know things about my friends, for example, by looking at them. I can tell how tall they are, or the color of their hair. We may be able to know something like blood pressure with the right measuring equipment. To know them as a friend though is mind-to-mind, interpersonal.

Using God as an example, I think we can know that there is a God rationally through certain rational arguments (Experience of God for some thoughts on that). Knowing him, though, is only through the hard work of interpersonal communication. For Christians (and other religions, for that matter), that is through contemplative practices. That said, we mostly accept second hand knowledge from the contemplatives. We take information from those who have known God, and apply the lessons rationally to inform non-contemplative praxis.

What career?

u/Donkey_of_Balaam · 2 pointsr/Noachide

David Bentley Hart is the author of The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Highly recommended.

Here is his review of Dennett's ghastly Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

u/youcat · 2 pointsr/atheism

I read his book a long time ago and thought it was great. I don't know what he's like as a debater but from memory, his book was solid. If you're looking to check out apologetics "from the other side", I'd also recommend Feser's The Last Superstition. I haven't read it yet but it's well-known in Catholic circles to be one of the best books written against atheism (tied for #5 on our sub's top 20 books). Someone also recommended this book to me recently, you might want to check it out.

u/EnochEmery · 2 pointsr/Christianity

That is not what I was saying at all. I was speaking of "God" as the source of being—an understanding of God broadly affirmed by many different religions (Abrahamic, of course, but also Hindu and certain forms of Buddhism, etc.). This God is categorically different than the god whose existence is so often debated by the new atheists and their detractors. It seems to me that the new atheists have created a straw-man version of god that they deny and so many Christians have rallied to defend the truth of that fabrication.

This is a fantastic book if you are looking to learn more.

u/kuvter · 2 pointsr/simpleliving

> How have you, experienced minimalists, handled situations like this?

I've been a minimalist for 5 years and I've experienced the same.

Many of my friends just didn't get it, so they attacked the idea. I figured it's a typical response to attack what you don't know or understand. At first I talked a lot about it, but for most people that didn't help. However, over time they say I was happier, and that they couldn't argue with. After a while I just stopped arguing with them, or trying to explain it (unless they asked), but rather showed them my life being better for it.

They could still text me to invite me to events. I did miss a few events (no FB) and heard about them later. I just simply asked that they would text me about them next time. If they didn't, or felt that was too much to ask, then I didn't complain. I decided if I wasn't worth texting (or calling) about an event then I didn't want to go, because I wasn't wanted enough. Why spend time with people who don't want you. With that my friends shifted a bit and I ended up with less 'friends' but better relationships.

Now, I've been traveling for the past 2 years and my friends have shifted again. Many of the people who's events I missed I don't even talk to anymore. I have made new friends, again less 'friends' and stronger relationships with the real friends who stuck around and new friends I've made.

I never recall ever being unsupported by family. Though my parents have been packrats since I was born. I haven't seen them for much over the last two years, but I heard two month ago that my mom read a book I suggested and now is giving away a bunch of stuff every week to thrift stores, so that's a huge plus!

TL;DR I exchanged my big group of 'friends' for real friendships with a smaller group.

u/transdermalcelebrity · 2 pointsr/TalesFromTheTheatre

Lol. There's a book that came out in the 80's. Like I said, I never read it so I don't know the details. Here

u/allboolshite · 2 pointsr/Apologetics

Thank you for the indepth reply.

God has revealed Himself through creation:

>For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)

I won't discuss a generic creator or pantheon because those are not my beliefs. Just the Christian God to which denomination doesn't matter provided the person accepts that they are a sinner and that they may receive the gift of freedom from sin and it's consequences through Christ alone.

Do you ever feel out of place? Or like things are wrong? Christians agree! We believe that because of sin, creation is corrupt bringing about all kinds of pain and frustration. This is another way that God reveals Himself to some people.

But really, existence is a pretty good argument for God. We exist in the "Goldilocks zone" that is one of very few places in the known universe that can support life. Not only that, but life actually appeared here. Just having the ability to support life doesn't automatically make it happen. In addition, we have intelligent, self-aware life. The math for this to occur is impossible. it can't happen. And yet we're here.

The debates are only necessary because God loves you and called His people to love you as well. There wouldn't be a debate if nobody cared.

God isn't a trickster nor an angry child not careless. His perspective as Creator and master of creation is wildly different from ours but always perfect. That includes a perfect love and a perfect sense of Justice.

If you want to know more about the reliability of eye witness accounts of Christ, I'd recommend Cold Case Christianity where an evidence-based approach is used on the gospels and supporting data. Man, Myth, Messiah also touches on this (and if only $1.99 on Kindle right now). And I understand that The Case for Christ written by an investigative reporter also looks into this but I haven't read that book myself yet.

Religious people don't have that much power. People who claim to be religious might. While 70% of Americans claim a "Christian heritage" only 40% of those people attend church. And only 45% of church attenders read the Bible away from church. Believe me, if more people who claimed to be Christian, actually knew the tenants of the faith you wouldn't have any problem with them being in power. The basics for Christianity start with: love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemy. Christians aren't called to hate gays, but to love them just like everyone else.

The instances of Christians being anti-science is mostly media hype. The scientific process began in the church as a method to explore and understand God's miraculous creation. The Bible isn't a science textbook, it's a collection of books and letters that form a singular narrative. It needs to be read and interpreted from that context.

And science has a lot of holes to be filled, including internal contradictions: quantum mechanics says the Big Bang is bunk, for example. Scientists and philosophers have been working for decades on a way to unify those pursuits called "the theory of everything". Science has faith that will happen. Some of what's called "science" really isn't. For science to be accurate it needs to be observable and repeatable. Here again, the Big Bang fails the test. I'm not anti science, and I suspect the Big Bang is valid, but I see it in Genesis:

> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [...] And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Maybe that describes Big Bang? Maybe not.

As to how well I know Christ the answer is, "not well enough." Christ followers start by accepting Christ as our Lord and savior for the forgiveness of our sins. Then we change. That change is called sanctification and it happens by getting in relationship and learning from Christ. I mean this literally through prayer and by studying the Bible. God wants to be in relationship with us. The change is to make us more Christ-like. You assume Christ is unaccessible which isn't true. He's alive right now, today. And I am constantly surprised by him and his compassion and sacrifice.

There's a lot of misconceptions about the faith. I'm considering a project to combat that both in popular culture and within the church. That's why I started this thread.

u/MrMyxolodian · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

This book doesn't offer much in the way of scripture or teachings, but it may be up your alley.

u/SuurAlaOrolo · 2 pointsr/Witch

Well... yes, you can. (Link is to an autobiography by a former Buddhist monk, still practicing Buddhist—self-defined but also accepted by other members of the Buddhist community—who also identifies as atheist but nonetheless keeps certain ritual practices.)

u/truth_fool · 2 pointsr/Futurology

Zen Buddhism. [Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist] (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071 ) is a great book talking about how reincarnation was just something the Buddha talked about in terms of adopting a world view that was very common at the time. It is not, therefore, a central component of the Buddha's message.

u/mking22 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

A Christian's faith in God is not of their own doing, it's a gift from God. One must be obedient before one can have faith. Some chapters of this book helped me to understand this concept.

u/chardish · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Mere Christianity is an excellent read. C. S. Lewis starts with a few secular assumptions and winds up leading the reader down a train of thought that explains how Christianity makes sense. Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic, but it sounds like you're struggling with Christianity in general, not just the Catholic Church.

http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313921416&sr=1-1

u/markkawika · 1 pointr/atheism

I am a rabid atheist, but I understand that Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis is extremely highly regarded by thoughtful Christians.

u/rybones · 1 pointr/Christianity

It happens with wisdom, not age. (Assuming) you are questioning the assertions of your current church. This could be a good time to dig deeper. Mere Christianity is a good place to start if you haven't read it already. Half Price Books will usually have a copy for a few dollars.

u/kaymar1e · 1 pointr/Christianity

idk_and_idc did a great job answering your questions. I'm no theologian, but I had many of the same questions before I started coming to church. I know that I am by no means qualified to answer all of your questions, but I may have some great places to direct you. I'm not sure if you're looking for resource recommendations, but I thought I'd suggest a few that seem relevant to your post.

u/Amator · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Hello, I'm a bit late to this parade (I just heard Dr. Peterson's podcast with Joe Rogan yesterday) but I wanted to weigh in here.

There are a lot of good sources from a variety of Christian viewpoints. Many of the ones already listed are very good, but I don't see anything from my own particular version of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy), so I wanted to suggest two resource for you from that perspective as well as another from C.S. Lewis whose words are held dear by most Christians.



The first is a lecture by Fr. John Behr, the current dean of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. He holds Masters of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University. This one is on YouTube and is 1.5 hours in length. It is called Death, the Final Frontier.There are a couple of minutes of fluff at the beginning but it starts to really roll into something I think Jordan Peterson fans would enjoy at the 3-minute mark. It is ostensibly about death, but it is a great critique of modern western culture viewed through the lens of liturgical Christianity.

This second is a recording of a lecture provided by a former dean of the same seminary that I think cuts to the heart of what Christianity actually means. It is called "The Word of the Cross" by Rev. Dr. Thomas Hopko and is around two hours total and has been broken into four individual sections by an Orthodox podcast publisher:
Part 1
[Part 2] (http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/hopko_lectures/the_word_of_the_cross_part_2)
Part 3
Part 4

Lastly, I would direct you toward the writings of C.S. Lewis. When I was a young teenage atheist, his arguments were very persuasive for me and have been very popular amongst most Christians. I know many Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics who have all found their first theological footing in Lewis' work. Mere Christianity is probably the best source to steer you toward, but I think his best ideas can be found in The Abolition of Man, The Great Divorce, and Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. Since you've professed a preference for audio content, I will point you toward a YouTube playlist of the series of BBC radio broadcast lectures that C.S. Lewis gave during WWII that were the core of what later became Mere Christianity.

I'm tempted to also suggest that you read Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kirkegaard, Dostoyevsky, St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many, many others. Enjoy your journey!

u/RyanTDaniels · 1 pointr/Christianity
  1. Because the Bible isn't a theology textbook. It's an epic narrative. I highly recommend The Bible Project for help in understanding this.
  2. Sounds like your definition of "Hell" is more influenced by the Middle Ages than the Bible. I recommend doing a word study on the words "hell (Gehenna)", "hades", and "the grave (Sheol)" in the Bible. You might be surprised by what you find. I also recommend reading The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis.
  3. You're judged by your actions, not your ability to understand the universe. God is fully aware of our lack of awareness, and will take that into account.
  4. Ah, the Election debate. This is where the "Bible is an epic narrative" thing becomes very important. Election/Predestination in the Bible is about Israel's role in God's plan. It's not about who gets to go to Heaven. God planned/elected/predestined/pre-purposed/chose Israel to have a particular role to play in His plan to save humanity from our slavery to sin. That role was fulfilled through Jesus (the climax of the epic narrative). God didn't predestine people for Heaven/Hell, rather He chose one people-group to be his instrument of redemption for the world. I recommend this video for help understanding the high-level epic narrative and Israel's purpose in it.
  5. Actually, I would argue the Bible has a pretty compelling answer: Humans.
  6. Having the Spirit residing in you doesn't guarantee intellectual agreement. It's not like you get an information download when you become a Christian. We still have to work through issues where we disagree, but if we have the Spirit in us, we will be able to do so in love.
u/ShakaUVM · 1 pointr/atheism

The Rise of Christianity has some good information on the plague of Galen, infanticide, and similar demographic differences between the pagan and Christian populations. It also talks about how Christians nursing people back to health during the various plagues contributed both to their mystique (pagan priests would flee out of town at the first sign of plague, something that caused a PR crisis), as well as to greater life expectancy. This also led to a demographic gain against the pagan population.

The plague of Galen was in 165-180, and the plague of Cyprian was in the 200s. They seriously depleted manpower in Italy, resulting in the importation of "barbarian" people into the empire to meet their needs. They both took place before Constantine, though it's notable that they were scapegoated for the Cyprian plague.

The plague of Justinian didn't start until the 500s, well after the collapse of the Western Empire, which is why I was objecting to it being included in the causes of the collapse.

u/SwordsToPlowshares · 1 pointr/Christianity

> 1. However the claims of divinity and supernatural powers have a high burden of proof which requires multiple independent sources. ... I would need more than that in order to believe the mystical claims about Jesus.

Can you clarify? I've already had a similar conversation before on Reddit, and in that case the other guy wouldn't specify how high he would raise the bar before he would believe. I think it's fair to be more skeptical of supernatural events than other events, but I don't think it's fair to raise the bar so high that it is pretty much impossible to have enough historical evidence for a certain miracle like the resurrection.

> The gospels ... that have been manipulated by others in numerous translations to further their own agendas.

What does this manipulation look like exactly? The gospels were produced in a dominantly oral culture - they were meant to be read out loud to a fairly large audience which already knew the rough outlines of the story, and would respond negatively if the storyteller would introduce significant innovations in the story. Or are you talking about later interpolations made by scribes (most of which are pretty insignificant)?

> 2 . Some of the things you've claimed are not true, like the authorship of the gospels.

Which claim of mine is not true? I claimed there are good reasons to accept the traditional authorship of the gospels and then proceeded to give two reasons. Wikipedia doesn't contradict those reasons. It doesn't seem like you have debunked anything at all.

> 3 . The early Christians obviously were people who needed a message of salvation due to the how difficult life was back then. It was a religion that appealed to the masses who were powerless and a heavenly reward was pretty much all they had to look forward to.

All this was already provided for by Judaism, so this cannot explain any supposed innovation of early Christians; and in any case, there is simply no evidence that the disciples were just desperate to believe in something. In most cases where people are pressured to believe something instead of accepting it on evidence, they will recant when faced with torture or death (this happened for example with two of the three witnesses who supposedly saw Joseph Smith interact with the angel Moroni), but this didn't happen with Christianity, although opponents of Christianity would have immediately seized upon such a recanting.

Christianity didn't have extraordinarily many converts from the poor, by the way; it seemed to have attracted people from every social class (see eg. Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity or the first chapter of Linda Woodhead's Introduction to Christianity).

> And the speed of Christianity's rise during the time period is tempting for someone who wants power and lots of believing followers.

Yeah, I'm not buying that line of reasoning - if Christianity were set up to exercize power over its adherents, its creators certainly did their best to diminish their own power by including egalitarian ideas like in Galatians 3:28, or perhaps the more famous Matthew 20:25-28:

> 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In any case there is no evidence of a conspiracy to gain power and again one could say that the opponents of Christianity would have seized upon that idea if there was any substance to it.

> 4 . I can't really respond to your comment fully without any sources to support your claims.

Are you referring to primary sources (eg. the gospels, Paul, Josephus) or secondary writings, ie. what scholars have written about early Christianity?

> This argument is a common one however and really it boils down to believing the bible is true because it says it's true. That's circular reasoning.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. You might have a point if I were just arguing "the bible is reliable because it says so in the bible" which is indeed circular. But I'm merely proposing a historical analysis of the gospels and some other documents. If you discount that, you could reject practically any historical document on the same charge of circularity.

u/kgbdrop · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Philosophical:

u/radical_heartbeat · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Crimes Against Logic. It's not a comprehensive primer on logic but this book highlights many common logical errors used today.

u/t-rexcellent · 1 pointr/atheism

find a little book called "Crimes Against Logic."

u/blowingmindssince93 · 1 pointr/logic

yeahhh i've been trying to do the same i've always been good at picking at fallacies within debates and arguments but never known the names and whatnot. i think my two favourite books i've read on it so far have been: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1OUX7ZNGSEQQY&coliid=I7NZTFCGW8PUC

and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fundamentals-Critical-Argumentation-Reasoning/dp/0521530202/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1OUX7ZNGSEQQY&coliid=I2KQKKH9GW8FG2
managed to borrow both from my university library!

u/TheEconomicon · 1 pointr/Christianity

>I’m genuinely confused, how is your faith in the bible different than cult members’ faith in their cult leaders’ words?

The difference between the Bible and a cult leader's words are pretty substantial.

  • The Bible is a compilation of works which require a lifetime of learning, reflection, and discussion in order to contemplate their meaning. Its substance and weight dwarfs that of the average cult leader's flimsy theology.

  • The Bible has an incredibly rich and historical literary tradition going back thousands of years. It is easily the most important book to exist in the West. The fact that the West's most significant and genius philosophers, teachers, historians, and authors held the Christian faith as central to their lives lends at least some veracity to the Bible's intellectual and historical substance.

    A charismatic preacher such as a cult leader has little but his words to legitimize himself. Thousands of books and letters have not been written around the People's Temple. There is no systematic and epistemological study of the vast majority of cults that matches that of Christianity or even the other major religions on Earth. Even most academics who are atheists and are not being completely uncharitable will agree with this.

    >Also, what is the single philosophical argument you find most impactful to your conversion?

    The Five Ways by Aquinas are good. But their function is not to convince people that God exists as much as it is to establish a foundation for the rest of Aquinas's theology. If you want a good book on the "essence" of what God is I would suggest this book.

    But honestly, the people who become convinced of God's existence are not those who read a philosophical proof and then believed. Speaking from the experience of my most intelligent friends, belief in God comes from the most unexpected places. One of my friends came to believe while reading a passage from Dante's Inferno. Another came to believe while going to the March for Life with their fiance. And there is another friend who realized they believed while arguing with someone over the existence of universal morality.

    My point is that belief in God does not come from reading a single philosophical or historical text. Rather, it appears from a complex blend of life experience, knowledge, and reflection. It is a long process that even the person himself may not notice until they find themselves at the cusp of believing. Another way of thinking about it is this: a war is often not won due to a grand battle; a war is won because of the many hundreds of skirmishes across many battlefields and points.
u/DivineEnergies · 1 pointr/Christianity

I'd recommend reading Hart's The Experience of God for quality answers to most of your questions here.

It lays out the philosophy of theism better than anything else I've read on the topic.

u/jez2718 · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

I believe that what makes our life meaningful is the meaning we give it. If for you that means committing to religion, then it is good for you to do that. I've personally met a bunch of people who said they felt like you did before joining the Church and that it really turned their life around.

>Just looking for reassurance that believing in God could be a plausible belief system.

I've only studied Christianity, but I would say that it definitely is plausible. There is a long tradition of very intelligent people who have thought a lot about the issues of God and religion, and whatever the New Atheists may say the answers these people have come up with can't be dismissed lightly. I would recommend this book, and especially any of the popular work of Swinburne or Plantinga (note: haven't read this one, but heard good things about it and Plantinga knows his stuff), as an introduction to the academic study and defence of theism.

>The possibility of God is all I've got, if I want to defeat my suicidal thoughts and embrace life fully.

Go for it, and I wish you the best of luck (though I also second others' recommendations of seeking counselling, it was a great help to me when I needed it).

Selfishly I will hope that at some point you might come to see the meaning I see in an atheistic world and be in a better space to consider the merits of atheism, but it sounds like that isn't what is important right now.

u/Sharks9 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I've actually visited a place like this called The Simple Way in Philadelphia. It's pretty cool to see the work they do as a community of believers living together. There's actually a book about it if anyone cares called The Irresistible Revolution

u/Draniei · 1 pointr/Christianity

Go + Do

And the Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne.

u/lamntien · 1 pointr/Christianity

Please read this book. It addresses both of your questions

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Case for ... Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_3Z0IAbH6G4K6Q

u/Delk133 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Thank you for giving me some insight into your story and background. And I definitely do understand the concern regarding emotionalism as a basis for truth. I agree with you wholeheartedly - at the end of the day, emotion is a terrible standard by which we judge truth.

There are several intellectual and reasoned arguments for the faith. Jesus Christ was a real man. Several hundred eyewitnesses saw Him risen from the dead. There are excellent resources out there that address the historical facts and claims of Jesus. For example:

  • The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

  • Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

    However, as a former Mormon, I'm sure you are aware of these resources and arguments.

    At the end of the day however, salvation in Jesus isn't found in intellectual arguments. It's not found in reasoning and logical deduction. It is found in a personal relationship with a living and breathing God.

    I know as a fact that Jesus is real and Jesus is God. I don't say this based purely on logic. I say it based on my experience. I have personally witnessed unquestionable miracles at the name of Jesus. I have seen incurable medical conditions disappear immediately at the name of Jesus. I have witnessed dead limbs come to life during prayer in the name of Jesus. I have trusted in God's Word which says things like "God will provide for all of your needs" in times when I had no money in the bank account - and God worked miracle after miracle. In one situation, I calculated that I would run out of money in one month but said, "God I trust you". And literally that second I received an email. My university sent me an email saying, "we billed you incorrectly - here's $1,100".

    I understand the skepticism to this type of personal experience. Even many Christians doubt that God is real and knowable in an experiential way. But don't take my word for it - here is a medically documented case study in which 24 deaf and blind people were healed immediately during prayer. These are medical doctors and PhD researchers doing scientific studies to see if this is true: it is. It's dense academic writing, but the bottom line is that at the name of Jesus the deaf are hearing and the blind are seeing.

    So my challenge remains. I have never once seen God not be faithful to His Word. I have never seen a bridge that Jesus won't cross to bring His children home. Jesus loves you. Jesus wants you to accept His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave as your only hope for salvation. Jesus wants to speak to you right now and give you a life of adventure. I think a really good place to start is this: are you open to Jesus appearing to you in a dream, vision, or very strong impression and telling you that He is the only way? Do you believe that if Jesus is God, then He can do this? A simple prayer to God like this can express your openness:

    "God, I really want to know You. Jesus, if You are God, please show me. I am open to whatever way You want to speak. If you're real, I must know. If you're God, I must know."

    I know of a Muslim man who prayed this prayer for 3 days straight while fasting. At the end of the 3 days he came to my missionary contact and said that Jesus appeared to him. My contact asked the Muslim what Jesus was like. And the Muslim began describing Jesus straight from the Bible: "He is the image of the invisible God. It was like I was seeing the exact representation of His being!" So this stuff is real - the only question is: How open and hungry are you?
u/D5LR · 1 pointr/AskMen

I think you're confusing morality and ethics - you can't use one to prove/disprove, or even support the other.

I'm a guy by the way. I think we're cool. You do you and I'll do me. :)

If you're ever interested in revisiting Christianity (from an intellectual, not faith, perspective) I would suggest this book - https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310345863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522900460&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+for+christ

Strobel applies legal tests to historical claims about the bible to assess how they hold up. It is a fascinating read.

Another good one is this one - https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522900483&sr=8-1&keywords=mere+christianity

Regardless of your theistic persuasion, this one is a life changer. The insight Lewis provides into human nature is amazing (although he is a little sexist in one section).

u/cypherhalo · 1 pointr/Christianity

I find your wording confusing . . . I mean I went through a similar period of doubt but after much study came to the conclusion I could choose to believe in Christianity or not, but I knew it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not. It wasn't really a matter of making myself as if I was doing something against my better judgment.

To comment on your specific example, those instincts would be focused on the in group, not humanity in general. So you would cooperate with your group sure but would be fine with treating others poorly. Indeed, we see this in much human behavior. Yet most of us instinctually know that's not right and the Bible certainly demands a higher standard than that.

Anyway, a book that helped me a lot is Don't Check Your Brains at the Door and I'd also recommend the "Case" books by Lee Strobel.

u/Guns_and_Dank · 1 pointr/politics

I see your article and raise you an entire book: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_rp0YAbAB552XY

I've read this book, enough of the Bible, your article, and many others, to know that there is so much out there and so many conflicting views that eventually you just have to go with what you feel is the right answer. I feel that I've had my prayers answered, I feel that the miracle of life is more complex and amazing than can just happen without a divine creator, I feel that there are things out there that just can't be measured by science like love and happiness that we know are real. We could go back and forth forever and never come to an agreement, hence what faith is for.

Now I also have plenty of skepticism and doubt over what's in the Bible. I take what works, makes sense, and is applicable and helpful to my life, and forget the rest. For example I don't believe that there's anything wrong or sinful with homosexuality, or that Noah put all those animals on one boat. But there's plenty in the Bible that are good lessons and good reminders to take with you in your day to day interactions.

I appreciate the article, I do. But I'll continue to say that it just doesn't seem plausible that so many of the people of that time claim to have met this man that we now base our entire standard of telling what year it is off of how long it's been since he lived.

u/dschaab · 1 pointr/exmormon

Anyone claiming that Jesus was invented or that the Jesus worshiped by Christianity today is an accumulation of legends has to at least contend with these facts:

  1. The mountain of manuscripts. The extant documents comprising what we now call the New Testament number upwards of 5,600 in the original Greek. Hundreds of these are from the first few centuries AD. When you add in translations to Syriac, Coptic, and Aramaic, you have more than 25,000 documents available. Simply put, there is more attestation for the life and teachings of Jesus than any other person of that era. If you believe Alexander the Great was a real person based on what little we have left of his early biographies (which were written centuries after his death), you have to accept the New Testament accounts of Jesus. For questions on the historical reliability of these documents, see Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the New Testament.

  2. The early dates. Christianity was flourishing within a few years of Jesus's death in (of all places!) Jerusalem, the city that saw him publicly crucified. If these events never occurred, it would be absurd to start a religion in the very place that was best equipped to refute your claims. Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language is a great overview from the start of Christianity all the way up to the modern era.

  3. The spread of Christianity in spite of violent persecution. This in and of itself does not prove the truth claims made by Christianity, but it does show that the early adopters sincerely believed what they were preaching. And since many of them claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events in question, we would have to conclude that they were either lying, delusional, or telling the truth. I think the third best fits the evidence.

  4. The lack of contemporary rebuttals. If Jesus never existed or if he were a collection of legends on top of a failed Messiah that everyone forgot about, it would have been much easier to start a religion after everyone of that time had died and could no longer refute your claims. But Christianity started in the 30s AD! Why then do we not see refutations of the events surrounding Jesus's life, death, and resurrection? I would think that even in the first century it would be nigh impossible to start a religion based on historical events if those events never actually took place.

    These are just some of the points in favor of the actual, historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If you want to dive deeper, Lee Strobel's Case for Christ is a favorite of mine and is a book that I like to hand out to our local missionaries.
u/the9trances · 1 pointr/WhitePeopleTwitter

If you're interested in learning more historical information about the Bible, Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ is very enjoyable to read and packed with well-sourced information. It engages very directly with skeptical questions

u/myynamejeffffff · 1 pointr/atheism
u/madhzub · 1 pointr/Buddhism

I think it really depends on what you want to get out of reading it. I think pretty much everything people have suggested could be/is a good choice, but interestingly they are all going to give you a very different impression of Buddhism.

What the Buddha Taught is simple but dry. Imo, doesn't convey much of the "spirit" of buddhism, but it does get the ideas across pretty directly. When I was about 18 I read this... it was pretty confusing at the time, being one of the first things I read on the subject.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind is a classic and also written in short essays, iirc. However that's from (obviously) a Zen perspective. It's going to have some pretty different things to say about Buddhism than Walpola's book. Also, Zen can be rather enigmatic. So don't expect any kind of direct explanation if you go that route.

Awakening the Buddha Within might be a pretty good choice. Das is good for a mainstream audience. He's light and fun to read, but also gives a lot of good information on the subject.

Siddhartha is probably the suggestion I like the most. It's literature, but also pretty short, and quite interesting. I think it probably is going to give you the best idea of what Buddhism is "about."

I would also throw out there a personal favorite, [The World is Made of Stories by David Loy] (http://www.amazon.com/World-Made-Stories-David-Loy/dp/0861716159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323643538&sr=8-1). This book makes for some very light reading and it's fun, but also very profound, imo. It's totally anecdotal, in that the whole thing is a collection of unrelated quotes strung together to convey a concept. However, don't expect any real talk about Buddhism. It really is just quotes.

Another thing that I think is worth mentioning, and might be a good choice, depending on your mentality is [Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor] (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323643708&sr=1-1). This book probably isn't for most people. For one thing its very polemic! And I don't necessarily agree with his ideas about the "historical Buddha" (a pretty lame concept in general, if you ask me) but reading this would definitely give you a good idea of how the western mind deals with some of the less appealing aspects of eastern thought. I think it can also show you what is at the core of Buddhism, what makes it worth translating into another culture.

Anyway, hope that helps!

u/blindlikeacloud · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

You can still be an atheist and "become" a Buddhist. A book worth checking out.

u/bletor · 1 pointr/Buddhism

I come from a similar angle, I'm surprised no one has suggested this:

"Buddhist Without Beliefs"
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564

"Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"
http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409011759&sr=8-1&keywords=confessions+of+an+atheist+buddhist

I highly recommend "Buddhist Without Beliefs", being an atheist you will find a lot of empathy points. Buddhism it self, a lot of people argue, is atheist, not based on a deity (or group of deities), but on self realization.

u/blacklemur · 1 pointr/Buddhism

Great book. I'm reading Bachelor's latest Confession of a Buddhist Atheist and having like moments. He's a stellar teacher.

u/GaboBR · 1 pointr/Buddhism

The Way of Zen, by Alan Watts

The Three Pilars of Zen, by Philip Kapleau Roshi

Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, by Stephen Batchelor.

Outside of that, most of the stuff that I read comes from brazilian monks, like Monja Coen or Monje Gensho

u/squidboot · 1 pointr/Buddhism
u/devianaut · 1 pointr/samharris

also, wanted to add - a good precursor to that book is confession of a buddhist atheist.

and his third book in a similar fashion, after buddhism: rethinking the dharma for a secular age.

u/theatrocitiesown · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

Check out this book on Buddhism written by Stephen Batchelor. It was a good read on Athiesm in Buddhism.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385527071/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/175-2409745-7939719

u/JustToLurkArt · 1 pointr/Christianity

To feel God's presence: faith = action. If you want to move forward in your spiritual journey then move forward. That's the scripturally supported way to feel God's presence. This modern notion of going to a building 1-hour a week with the expectation of a Matrix-esque instant download of peace, comfort, safety and happiness is what is called "cheap grace".


Saving faith is inextricably tied to action and discipleship is engagement. I suggest reading The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. If you don't want to buy it then I'm sure your town Library has a copy.


Bonhoeffer coined the phrase "cheap grace" which he said was grace without discipleship. The most powerful times I feel God's presence, when it literally overflows within me, is when I'm being a good steward – putting faith into action by serving.

u/a-very-sad-man · 1 pointr/Reformed

You're getting a lot of pushback here. I don't want to stumble into an argument here, but I would point you to Bonhoeffer's modern classic The Cost of Discipleship, which touches on this topic.

u/Chautauqua2020 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I recommend a book called "The Cost of Discipleship" by Deitrich Bonheoffer. It's theology is first rate, and it will bring you to that certain and undeniable and inescapable "edge" of Jesus' call, where the decisive step is taken, which is not a work but a simple act of obedience at the outer limit of human freedom. The choice is still your own however, if you want to take on Jesus' yoke and be joined to Him in fellowship, or not. If you read it carefully, then you will come into the understanding and comprehension that's evading you, or that you've been evading perhaps even because of what Bonheoffer argues, very effectively, is a "cheap grace" prevalent in modern contemporary Christendom.

It puts forward a powerful argument that every "Christian" ought to be made aware of, so that they will understand in no uncertain terms the defense that they've unwittingly put up against having an authentic experience of being in fellowship with Jesus as a domain of true life and all possibility.

The arguments that we put up in the back of our mind to avoid obedience to His call are most absurd and pathetic, so be forewarned!

What i've discerned from it is that there's a very compassionate and uncompromising nature to what Jesus is asking at the threshold where worlds collide, which is only gracious on His part, but that it also contains a certain stalwart mirth and charm which refuses to budge from His center of joy and happiness that requires true faith in Him to be appreciated. He's a real charmer that Jesus, but his reason and logic is indomitable.

There's a new argument here that I've not encountered anywhere else that might even be sufficient to cause a prior atheist to courageously drop all his prior conceptions and be the first out of the boat to take Jesus' hand of friendship and love.

u/Rex130 · 1 pointr/TrueChristian

I would highly suggest The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer Its an awesome book. Aside from the Bible its one of two books I like best.

u/andmoreagain · 1 pointr/Christianity

I'd also suggest Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom (Metropolitan Anthony Sourozh). I'm personally reading this book at the moment and even though it's only 128 pages it has a lot of depth and has helped me tremendously in prayer.

I'd also recommend going for walks with a prayer rope and reciting the Jesus Prayer. Take a break from computers and phones and stuff and do a one on one with the Lord.

u/grumpythunder · 1 pointr/psychotherapy

Apologies for my delayed response. Life got wild for a bit there (lots of clients in crisis for some reason ...)

Anyway, I'm most familiar with the Roman Catholic tradition. The Roman Catholic Church has a long standing tradition of contemplative prayer. Contemplative prayer can trace its roots back to the Church Fathers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

especially the Desert Fathers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers

The well respected "thought leaders" in Roman Catholicism around contemplative prayer include Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross (the 'dark night of the soul' guy; a concept I find very helpful in therapy), as well as in the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross

https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/the-spiritual-exercises

As for my own thoughts, I talk to Christian clients about contemplative prayer as placing oneself in the presence of God; of developing a relationship with the Divine (rather than only petitioning, which is what many people do in prayer).

A great book on the basics of contemplative prayer:

https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Pray-Anthony-Bloom/dp/0809115093/ref=la_B001HCS4V2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519667950&sr=1-1#customerReviews

u/SK2018 · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

>Despite the claims in scripture.

Quite the accusation! Where do any of the Patristics teach that God will answer any old human whim?

You say:
>Shouldn't I expect the same results?

As a matter of strict logical necessity? Nope. This is great literature on the subject.

You say:
>That presupposes there's an answer.

At the very least, it points to the great mystery of being. This is what Plato meant when he said that "All philosophy begins in wonder."

u/elgreco10 · 1 pointr/Christianity

If you're a reader, I'd recommend Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom. It's a wonderful book for people at all levels of spiritual development or denominations on developing a relationship with God.

u/lutheranian · 1 pointr/Christianity

Last year I was fascinated with eschatology and found a rather extensive book on this subject. Heaven by Randy Alcorn. Some of the content of the book is speculation based on verses concerning this throughout the Bible, but as a whole it's an extensive overview of the afterlife. I grew up thinking the afterlife was heaven, a non-temporal realm as it's portrayed in the media.

I don't know how highly contested the new earth theory of the afterlife is among Christians, but from reading the verses associated with it I can't come to any other conclusion.

Anyways, good article. Wright is always a good read.

u/Righteous_Dude · 1 pointr/Christianity

There's a book about heaven by Randy Alcorn which may address this.

u/terevos2 · 1 pointr/Reformed

> I think I am scared of the idea of living forever, in which my mind is never at peace. I am a Christian and know that we will be glorifying God forever and adoring Him in the new heaven/new earth, but perhaps that just feels too vague or something.

I find that most people have a really weak understanding of Heaven. There really is a good amount from the Bible on what Heaven will be like. And on top of that, there is a considerable amount of speculation based on scripture, which can give us a pretty good picture of what we might expect in Heaven. Some of the problem is our limited imagination.

For one, you can know with 100% certainty that you will not be in a situation as a Christian where you live forever, but your mind is not at peace - one of the things granted to us in Heaven is peace and rest in Christ.

I second Heaven by Randy Alcorn.

He also has a fiction series that deals with some of those themes, too.

u/cmanthony · 1 pointr/Christianity

There is a book by a dude named Randy Alcorn simply called Heaven. I thought it was well written and quite interesting.

u/MadCalvanist · 1 pointr/Christianity

A really great book to read that touches on this topic very well I think is Heaven by Randy Alcorn. It's well researched, though he is clear on areas of speculation, for instance the reason for marriage not being in heaven is that there would no longer need to be a legal covenant, relationships would simply continue to develop on a higher level... if I remember correctly, it's been years since I read it. It's an excellent read though, I highly recommend it.

u/I_aint_creative · 1 pointr/Christianity

> But Catholicism seems to have better answers with more room for interpretation for them (for example: universal or purgatorial reconciliationism).

Catholicism doesn't teach (and will never teach) as dogma universalism--but we don't bar the possibility. See, e.g. Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?.

u/lurker_bot · 1 pointr/Sidehugs
u/vfr · 1 pointr/atheism

DID YOU WRITE THIS BOOK?

u/sundjub · 1 pointr/promos

Customers who viewed that also viewed this. Even better customers who viewed that also view this.

u/kafkaesque_bakesale · 1 pointr/atheism
u/jtbandes · 1 pointr/pics

The fantastic book itself on Amazon.

u/jeremyfirth · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Too bad you only have $25 to spend. Otherwise, you could get this book that was dictated by God's Holy Spirit that is titled "Birth Control is Sinful in the Christian Marriages and also Robbing God of Priesthood Children!!" It's only $135. (You save 15%!)

u/TheyShootBeesAtYou · 1 pointr/Christianity
u/MrTimofTim · 1 pointr/atheism

With all the Caps, what do you think of this tome of knowledge?

Source

u/Darkness12 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

From that site I was linked to this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1425992609/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk, which is written completely in CAPS LOCK. Awesome reviews.

u/likeasalmon · 1 pointr/OpenChristian

I have three books on my shelves at the moment that I'd gladly recommend:

Torn by Justin Lee. Outside of the US the book is called Unconditional.

Bible Gender Sexuality by James V. Brownson.

God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines.

u/Computician · 1 pointr/Christianity

Please, read the book Torn. This is a good book about a Godly man who is a homosexual.

u/virtual_six · 1 pointr/BabyBumps

I swear by the Love and Logic series. They have this, which I have not tried but plan on getting. I have used this book with my 6 year old daughter for the last 2 years. I really wish I would have found it sooner! It would have made the toddler years much less confusing and waaaaay less frustrating. I went through a lot of trial and error with parenting methods, and this is the only approach that makes me feel like I am doing the right thing as a parent.

As far as taking care of a baby, this is helpful and hilarious. The men get a kick out of it, and the information is wonderful.

u/infinitivephrase · 1 pointr/legaladvice

It's Parenting With Love and Logic. That's the basic, central text. They have other books, and they're all good, but start with this one. It gets away from punishment/reward and works on building intrinsic motivation. It's all about consistency, making a child's world make more logical sense, and maintaining respect, dignity, and empathy for the child (thus showing the child how people are supposed to interact).

https://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Love-Logic-Updated-Expanded/dp/1576839540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482074748&sr=8-1&keywords=parenting+with+love+and+logic

u/Old_Man_D · 1 pointr/Fosterparents

I'd recommend reading this.

u/LegitKEG · 1 pointr/Nanny

This one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1576839540/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1452001848&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=parenting+with+love+and+logic&dpPl=1&dpID=51Q4P6nPSVL&ref=plSrch

The first few reviews to show up, which I guess are the most recent, are 1 or 2 stars and say it's terrible... I think I'll get the toddler one and start that first though!

u/busuku · 1 pointr/Buddhism

If you are looking for good reading on Buddhism, I cannot recommend enough a book called, "The Way of the Bodhisattva", by Shantideva.

Another favorite is, " Gates to Buddhist Practice ", by Chagdud Tulku

( an excerpt )

Best of luck.

u/lgstarn · 1 pointr/Buddhism

Shingon and Zen are both practices that, in my opinion, benefit greatly from some preliminary understanding of Buddhism. There is a lot of info out there and you already have a great start with Suzuki. In my opinion, you'll want to get a feel for the Buddhist approach to inquiry, teaching, and the importance of spiritual friends. accesstoinsight.org has some fantastic material from the Theravada tradition, which (again in my opinion) serves as an excellent foundation for the Mahayana tradition if you so choose. I personally am Mahayana but learn so, so much from Theravada.

Inquiry: The Kalama Sutta

How to recognize the Dharma

The importance of spiritual friends

Access To Insight Study guides

If you feel you have a good handle on the basic concepts like the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Noble Path, Stream Entrancy, etc., then Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva is a sublime text no matter what tradition you end up calling home. Good luck!

u/asnoel · 1 pointr/Buddhism

The first book that my teacher instructed that I read is The Way of the Bodhisattva by Shantideva. In many ways, this is a foundational text across the various Tibetan traditions, and it really grounded me in my preliminary practice.

/u/DespreTine provides a great list of teachers. (A personal favorite is Bokar Rinpoche, who was my teacher's root guru and who I have developed a devotional relationship toward. He has a few books out there, but they're really more designed for practioners who have received certain empowerments/transmissions.)

The key here, of course, is that there really is no substitute for a lama/guru who you can physically go to and receive teachings from. They will guide you along the path.

u/space_noodel · 1 pointr/Buddhism
u/BranderChatfield · 1 pointr/GayChristians

Here is a site to help you find an affirming church:

http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/


Also, if you can get your hands on this book God and the Gay Christian, it will help you with a lot of your Bible questions.



u/KazakiLion · 1 pointr/ainbow

"Thank you for sharing that reading with me earlier. I also have some reading I was hoping we could sit down and look at." http://www.amazon.com/God-Gay-Christian-Biblical-Relationships/dp/1601425163

Sorry your parents are being jerks. Hopefully they'll come around.

u/ricecake_nicecake · 1 pointr/ainbow

If they would be receptive to something written by an evangelical biblical scholar who is gay, I recommend God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines. http://www.amazon.com/God-Gay-Christian-Biblical-Relationships/dp/1601425163

He tells his personal story AND addresses all the biblical texts that have been used against gay people. He makes a very convincing case for an inclusive and affirming faith that's based in scripture. He also gives a compassionate account of his father's experience of coming to accept him as a gay Christian.

u/Joe_____ · 1 pointr/actuallesbians

You should also check out God and the gay christian by Matthew Vines. It's a relatively short book, but it cemented the belief that homosexuality isn't a sin in my mind.

u/Naptownfellow · 1 pointr/atheism
u/rationalomega · 1 pointr/news

Here it is:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983

If you find comparable versions of the Koran and Tora, let me know! I'm definitely interested.

u/GuyMumbles · 1 pointr/news

https://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983 My brother got me this book for Christmas one year. It might be what you are looking for.

u/fmlthrowaway48 · 1 pointr/exmormon

I've learned a hell of a lot more from God Is Disappointed In You than I have in seminary. My history class also has taught me more about life then than seminary has.

u/A_Fish_That_Talks · 1 pointr/bestof
u/fort_wendy · 1 pointr/news

There's actually a book that's sort of written like this. Met one of the creators at the NYCC '15. I think there also other books that are similar in nature.

u/LadyAtheist · 1 pointr/atheism

The Christian Delusion edited by John Loftus is an excellent collection of essays coming from various points of view

u/TooManyInLitter · 1 pointr/ReasonableFaith

A tough view. The use of pop, and children's, culture icon cartoon figures, the distracting background noise, and the really slow presentation of actual information/argument make the first vid hard to watch and really dilutes any message. Though I did like the cameo from the Little Caesars Pizza-Pizza guy. From watching the first vid, there is no topic argument/position statement explicitly made/presented, though if I had to guess as to the final topic position/argument, based upon the way the very sparse information is presented, that an argument will be made that supports the listed or attributed authors of the various books of the NT - this is just a guess, the presentation of introductory material was really incoherent.

> "One of the things I have noticed about critics who say that this or that book in the NT is bogus is that they seldom seem to explain in any detail how we decide who wrote a document."

Say what? I smell a strawman argument.

The above quote was made whilst a slide show of books that discuss the New Testament was shown. Some of these books are recognizable as titles containing literary criticism of the New Testament, many are not. I could not get a good look at the "examples" presented as the screen time was very short (compared to the relatively long time given to worthless animations of smurfs or topic transition special effects), too short to get a good look at the sources that I assume supports the above statement was quoted; I had to do a frame by frame advance to see/read the titles presented.

Let's look at the first few "references" presented:

  • The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Acharya S

    Just between the book title and lack of authorship identification, without even reading the book description, is enough for anyone discussing NT literary criticism to reject the book as a credible source.Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books. Nope.

  • Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, by Dan Barker

    A book containing the personal journey of one man losing Religious Faith. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.

  • Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan

    Examines the documentary hypothesis and other possible sources of much of the narrative of the Bible. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.

  • The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, by John W. Loftus (Editor) , Dan Barker

    Look, another Dan Baker book already. A book against the reasonableness and rationality of Christian belief. Does not seem to be a reference to literary criticism and authorship of the New Testament books.

  • Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity, by George Albert Wells

    Finally, a book that appears to have sections that may address the authorship of selected New Testament writings (I say appears as I have not read it and am relying upon the publisher description, the TOC, and reviews) - though the book appears to be more directed towards the content of the NT rather than attributed source critism.

    Bummer. Out of the first 5 potential references which one would reasonably consider as being presented on the authorship of the NT (you know, the topic/vid title), none (0 for 5) of them seem to be a reference to literary criticism of the authorship of the New Testament books. And I wanted to use the very references presented above to refute the strawman argument presented in the above quote that books/references that perform a literary criticism of the NT authorship (or the Bible in general) "seldom seem to explain in any detail how we decide who wrote a document."

    Let's look at a popular writer on the New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman. An example, Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. And look at that, Ehrman does indeed present extensive detail, on the how's of literary criticism and attributed authorship. Granted one example does not a strawman break, however, I have found that references literary criticism, Biblical or other, almost always include a review of the methods used.
u/NoahsGhost · 1 pointr/exmormon

The OP and the book don’t talk about anything but Christianity - that does not exclude other gods. That’s a logical conclusion that is not present in this thread outside of your post.

Here’s a link to the book - it’s written by an atheist but it’s only focus is Christianity: https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=nodl_

There are many people and religions that identify as Christian that believe in more than one god.

u/singham · 1 pointr/hinduism

There is a very good book which I recommend. What you are briefly outlining is the very attitude we should have while dealing with faiths.

https://www.amazon.com/Outsider-Test-Faith-Which-Religion/dp/1616147377

u/BurgandyBurgerBugle · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

For anyone looking for a logical resource to take a skeptical, comprehensive, step-by-step look at any God or faith, The Outsider Test for Faith is a great resource.

u/amanonreddit · 0 pointsr/Christianity

Source [amazon.com] Heaven by Randy Alcorn (and the Bible of course)

Heaven will be earth without sin period.

When I say heaven will be earth I mean it. Heaven will be the manifestation of "heaven on earth." This means be our actual physical present earth, the one your feet rest upon at this moment will be heaven (where God lives). It will be all of the good of the present earth without any of the bad. If you Imagine everything good in this world without corruption you may have a glimpse at what heaven will be like for the Christian

u/riffraff98 · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

Well, complete and total separation from God, for one.

The Great Divorce Is a good, fictional look at how much that might suck.

u/Throwawayedgemont · 0 pointsr/Christianity

The idea of charity being an obligation for all people did not exist before Christianity. Pagans practiced infanticide on infants and temple prostitution. Charity was not considered a virtue. Jews valued charity, but gentiles were only held to the standard of the Noahide laws. Christianity as unique in sayingn charity towards all humans was the duty of every human being. Even today in India, charity is not considered a virtuous behavior. https://www.amazon.com/Shame-Sin-Christian-Transformation-Antiquity/dp/0674660013

​

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Religious-Centuries/dp/0060677015/ref=sr_1_3?crid=G9Y01KR7DTWV&keywords=rodney+stark+the+rise+of+christianity&qid=1558108879&s=books&sprefix=rodney+stark+%2Cstripbooks%2C159&sr=1-3

​

Many of the morals we take for granted-sexual monogamy, infanticide being evil,, charity being good-were unique to Christiainity

u/kfphysics · 0 pointsr/atheism

>TL;DR If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one.



I completely agree with your sentiments, but I want to point out a bit of a logical fallacy many of us fall under when trying to argue with the religious. The problem is that things like abortion and gay marriage go against a Christian's fundamental set of beliefs, and they are taught not to abide by it in any capacity. Jaime Whyte does a better job of explaining it in his book "Crimes Against Logic." I think it's a book /r/atheism or /r/politics would enjoy.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0071446435

u/readercuthbert · 0 pointsr/Christianity

This is my favorite introductory book that covers the basics.

For primary sources in regards to the Fathers that gave Eastern Orthodoxy its intellectual shape:

Origen: On First Principles
Gregory of Nyssa: On the Soul and Resurrection and On the Making of Man
Athanasius: On the Incarnation

For more contemporary works, I’d suggest David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God and That All Shall Be Saved

u/jonms83 · 0 pointsr/atheism

you should consider giving up on 'religion'... i hate the term, and what it's become. I agree with your perception of 'religion' atleast from this perspective.

I consider myself christian, but don't believe in the pope at all. In fact, where I go to church... the pastors dress just like I do... jeans and a button up shirt. They're nothing special, they're just trying to point you towards the one who is 'special'.

try reading The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical

u/Leahn · -1 pointsr/DebateAChristian

> You are making a huge assumption that the Bible is god's guide.

I am answering from within the parameters you gave me. You asked originally about JW's interpretation of Christianity. I think I am granted such assumption in the light of this fact.

> What about all those people who fervently believe the Koran or Old Testament (only) or the Upanishads or the Veda or any other holy book to be god's guide to man?

God will judge them, not me. My task is to spread His good news to them. If He deem them worthy of salvation, then they are worthy of salvation.

> Do you not pause and question what makes your holy book so special, what makes your holy book the true word of god? If other people believe in other holy books with as much you zeal as you do in yours, how can you tell your not falling into the same false belief as they are? How do you know you are following the true word of god and not some impostor?

I suggest Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief or C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity.

My argument for it is fairly simple. The God worshipped by the Christians is the same God that was already being worshipped when Ur was the most important city in the world. The other gods came and went, but He remained.

> If you are truly following the word of god (bible) and Hindus aren't (in general), shouldn't you feel god more?

No, why should I?

> Shouldn't god give you some indication you are on the right path as oppose to how you would feel if you were Hindu?

O, but He does! Truth will set you free, and that is your signal.

> That is like giving your children a test and then rewarding everyone who answered the questions equally regardless if they got it right, and then punishing those who got it wrong (punishment depending on your belief on heaven/hell can simply be having it somehow worse off in the afterlife then another person).

The destiny of mankind is to stay on Earth. No one will be 'worse off' than anyone else.

> How are any of your children supposed to know what the right answers (any 'lifestyle/faith' that gets you the best possible afterlife) are if you give everyone equal encouragement throughout the learning process and test?

There is no best possible afterlife. There is a simple hope of eternal life here on Earth.

> If Hindus can/will obtain the same level of afterlife as members of your faith, then again I ask, why are you spreading your faith?

Why do you tell your friends when something good happens to you?

u/anem0ne · -1 pointsr/gay

I know. I know you didn't mean it like that. Or, at least, I'm trying to know that--but, you know, after years of bigots and the ignorant proclaiming that the QUILTBAG community is dragging everyone down a rainbow-bricked road to hell, where we're blamed for hurricanes, and 9/11, and Boston, and the like, it's hard not to see that first paragraph and be, well, a little bitter?

Before I came out to my mom, on separate occasions, she told me that two things were American problems that never happened in the old country: serial killings, and gays. Never mind the fact that she was wrong on both counts. Just comparing the two, and terming them both as problems?

I'm pretty sure my mom doesn't think my preference for the company of men is as bad as if, say, I started murdering people en mass in real life. I'm pretty sure she doesn't even really remember saying those things, given that they were at least a decade and a half ago.

But I remember.

I'm not saying this to discount your... evolution on this matter. I'm glad that there are more people coming around on this, understanding that the extent of our gay agenda is generally no different from anyone's normal day or their hopes and dreams. I just wish there weren't comparisons with more horrible things out there.

Anyway, I don't know if you're one of faith (I'm not), but there have been some interesting books of late trying to bridge Christianity, well-known for its hatred of the queer community (perhaps not completely intentionally), which I think might be of interest to you?

-Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate by Justin Lee. I don't think his theology requires as much gymnastics as some other modern interpretations, but I find myself still not being able to really understand why he wants to hold so fast to it.

-The Cross in the Closet by Timothy Kurek. He's the one with the Indiegogo campaign from a while back, pretty much doing Black Like Me or Self-Made Man, only as a gay person. It has all the flavor of being a witness, which again, completely escapes my grasp, but.

-Does Jesus Really Love Me? by Jeff Chu. I think he's far, far too gentle on some of the more odious sects, and far, far, far too harsh on those that decided to leave the faith. But it's an interesting journey, nonetheless.

u/Creepy_Submarine · -1 pointsr/Parenting

The people that are saying "Don't expect anything better from a two year old" are off-base. Having low standards for children is mainly an American cultural thing. I suggest reading "Parenting with Love and Logic" . Seriously, if you only read one book, make it this one. Make your fiance read it too.

There's not a lot you can do by yourself without your fiance's help. She will need to be the main enforcer. Be 100% consistent in your consequences, and act with empathy and concern, and not out of anger. It's important that she understands the consequence happened because she made a bad decision, and not because her parents are angry.

Another great book, if you are a reader, is French Children Dont Throw Food.