(Part 2) Best christian social issue books according to redditors
We found 598 Reddit comments discussing the best christian social issue books. We ranked the 211 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.
I recommend the book God is Red. It does a great job of explaining the importance of place in Native American culture.
I think that people who immigrated or whose ancestors immigrated have a hard time understanding the important connection to environment felt by peoples who have had an intimate relationship with it for ~12,000 years—myself included.
Read How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaeffer.
Bottom line: as government grows, Christianity and government become enemies, because:
Capitalist countries, on the other hand, are predicated on the idea that government exists to provide men with a means of forcing its citizens to do things, which is usually (not always) bad. The best path forward is to enforce laws regulating conduct but not outcome.
The more you regulate anything, the more force men need to apply to other men. Since regulating outcome requires vastly more power than conduct, socialism requires much more power to be sustainable. Concentrated power on that scale is never good in the hands of fallen men.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have," as they say. Including your freedom to worship.
Saw him play this past May in Boston and they were phenomenal. If you get a chance check out his books Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant? and Anarchy Evolution. Very smart dude and an incredibly talented vocalist.
He wrote a lot about basic income in
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? http://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-We-Here-Community/dp/0807000671
There's a whole book!
Enlighten yo' self
You might be interested in reading a book called "Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence" - I found particularly interesting the chapter where the author examines how so many major characters of the early church came to the same conclusion you just mentioned. In fact, the author mentions that among the first few centuries prior to Constantine, he was not able to find one church father who justified violence.
Counterpoint: Charity done for PR can often be worse than useless.
http://www.cracked.com/article_23626_5-times-music-industry-charity-hurt-more-than-it-helped.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/giving-to-charity-can-be-harmful-2013-11
https://www.amazon.ca/Toxic-Charity-Churches-Charities-Reverse/dp/0062076213
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9681699/How-charity-makes-life-worse-for-Africans.html
Now, it's POSSIBLE for charity to help - but making a positive difference overall is actually really damn hard, and someone in it for their ego or public image is not doing the work to make sure their actions are helpful.
The lesson is, don't judge someone when the check gets signed. Judge it only when they've done the follow-up later on and proven it really helped; THEN you can give them credit. And if they never follow up and check the consequences of their actions? Fuck 'em. They're wasting your time and everyone else's.
I miss them too, but that is because they lost - so much so that they are considering a complete withdraw which means they are easier to imagine as non-scary.
It's tempting to say that the solution to this kind of deeply troubling behaviour is for the church to avoid talking about politics. My personal belief, though, is that the church needs to get better at talking about politics.
Jesus, after all, littered his rhetoric with discussions of kings & kingdoms, law, grace, wealth, poverty, obligation, community, war, peace, power, and more. And the early church seemed to have no problem borrowing and re-purposing contemporary political labels and slogans - phrases like 'prince of peace' and 'son of God' were pretty much directly stolen from imperial roman propaganda.
But more than that, they created a profoundly diverse community. I love that in Jesus little group, he had both zealots (who believed in radical, violent overthrow of the regime) and tax collectors (collaborators with the regime.)
It would be like starting a church in Iraq and inviting ISIS members AND people who had worked as translators for the US military.
So Jesus both engages with politics and somehow at the same time transcends it. Just as we think we're getting a handle on his perspective he throws us a curveball with crazy ideas like 'the first shall be last' and 'losing is winning' and 'leaders is demonstrated by doing the most menial tasks.'
In my church we don't shy away from politics. And yet we probably have people who voted for every major party in our recent federal election. We have folks who soldiers and pacifists, wealthy and poor, queer and straight, recent immigrants and multi-generational Canadians. We deeply believe in building what John Pavlovitz calls a Bigger Table, a place where people who are genuinely different to each other can come together & eat, worship, and interact in a healthy fashion.
(And as to socialism - as Canadians we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister and socialist politician who first introduced universal health care to our country. I'm profoundly grateful for the contribution that Christian socialists have made to our world over the last century.)
I would encourage you to read The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes. It has helped me in a similar time.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Bruised-Reed-Puritan-Paperbacks/dp/0851517404
The Benedict Option
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KUCY7XI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Yes, we need to remember where our allegiance belongs. Some in the Church seem to want to align themselves with power.
Have you read Resident Aliens? It was a seminal work in my thinking on this when it was first published 28 or so years ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Resident-Aliens-Christian-Expanded-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B00K23HC56/ref=sr_1_1?crid=Q61QO9VRUC8G&keywords=resident+aliens&qid=1570985688&sprefix=resident+aliens%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
Not internet, but...
The Bible, Rocks, and Time: geological evidence for the age of the Earth.
It's a well written book by two Christian geology professors that is a scholarly examination of the various interpretations of the creation account in Genesis, how they were developed, and the context in which it was written.
The second part provides multiple examples of evidence for the ancient age of the planet, and a damning critique of all the arguments that YECs have put forth for a young Earth, and against evolution. It then goes on to explain how those arguments are against biblical teachings and detrimental to religion.
It has everything anyone would need to destroy the arguments of YEC/antievolutionists using theology and science.
It's a must read for modern Christians.
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Rocks-Time-Geological-Evidence/dp/0830828761
> Do some volunteer work sometime, and spend a few afternoons having to politely give free stuff to people who already have more money than you do. You'll change your attitude.
I think that one of the biggest reasons that people are so concerned about this fraud is that they can see and experience it, or at least imagine it. I've actually worked in this field for the last two years and I've volunteered periodically before that: what you are describing is an example of toxic charity.
On the other hand, the abuses of the campaign finance system or of investment and banking corporations like Goldman Sachs are much more difficult to wrap your head around and as you said, seem to be intractable.
That doesn't mean we should fall into the psychological trap of spilling ink and dedicating more and more outrage to things that really, frankly, do not matter.
>Right. We should totally ignore ISIS. That'll make the world a better place.
I actually believe this. ISIS is no more brutal or evil than the Mexican drug cartels or Boko Haram, and US intervention in the middle east is at least partially responsible for the birth of ISIS. We have now entered the fourth generation of blowback from political meddling in the middle east that traces its lineage back to the Ottoman Empire and colonialism. As recently as two years ago, we were hearing that this Bashar Assad person was an evil menace that had to be stopped, only to see him supplanted almost entirely. Before that, there was Osama, Saddam, and various other players, many of whom had at one point been US allies or received covert military or financial support from the US.
The point of terrorism is to terrorize a population, and it is insane to let the deaths of a few people (even the tremendously unjust deaths) redefine the entire media narrative and policy priorities of a country where orders of magnitude more people are dying of preventable accidents, illnesses, and diseases.
A lot of far-right people tend to be religious, and basically 100% of far-right people are shitty people. So that...certainly tends to skew how people recognize the correlation.
It's worth acknowledging that a bunch of trans folks are religious, which is really affirming for me. I wouldn't say *I'm* religious, but it helps me believe that being trans is just a part of human identity, so of course trans folks can be religious, you know? Bearing that in mind, I appreciated this book, which is basically half written for cis people who want to understand where trans folks fit under Christianity, and half written for trans folks who are trying to find a way of looking at Christianity that isn't horrifying.
https://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Bible-Lives-Transgender-Christians-ebook/dp/B07C9FK1MZ
Steve Quayle is a right-wing Bush-supporting crackpot.
But there are serious scholars who have done tons of work on giants.
http://www.varchive.org/itb/giants.htm
http://www.varchive.org/itb/nefilim.htm
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/giants/holocaust.html
http://www.examiner.com/native-american-history-in-national/did-giants-once-live-north-america
http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Reason-Vine-Deloria-Reader/dp/1555914306/
http://www.amazon.com/God-Red-Native-Religion-Anniversary/dp/1555914985/
In addition:
Consider the fact that mainstream science knows that megaflora & megafauna, including giant mammals of all species EXCEPT MAN once lived upon the earth.
It would seem that in the past, the earth's atmosphere somehow sustained larger versions of every animal.
Would it not be logical to infer that -- along with all the other giant horses, giant sloths, giant bears, giant wolves, giant mammoths & mastodons -- also lived giant human mammals?
My top 2 that are on my list right now:
Currently reading Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? He reflects on civil rights movement and proposes future movement for the impoverished.
An aside, the book unChristian is a book I can recommend to any Christian.
First, a link to a podcast some faithful members did with the authors of the study: https://mormonnewsreport.com/2019/02/24/mnr-78-the-next-mormons-with-jana-riess-and-benjamin-knoll/
Second, a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Next-Mormons-Millennials-Changing-Church-ebook/dp/B07MTGMC7K/
Third, a link to the discussion on the study from this very sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/b3xz2v/discussion_of_the_next_mormons/
And lastly, an AMA we did on this sub with the authors: (Actually, I don't know what happened to the AMA, I couldn't find it, but here is the announcement for it) https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/b0sqal/ama_announcement_jana_riess_and_benjamin_knoll/
Edit - looks like my third link is the AMA
> First, I'm interested in how Israel is connected in Reformed Theology. I live in an area where Christian Zionism is the air you breathe and every single policy has to benefit Israel or else God will be against us. I doubt this for many reasons. How do we talk to folks like this? How do we work to change this kind of attitude? What do the Scriptures really say about Israel?
The Puritan Richard Sibbes writes, "The faithful Jews rejoiced to think of the calling of the Gentiles; and why should not we joy to think of the calling of the Jews?"
The Reformed, while far from Zionist or dispensationalist, do hope for the conversion of the Jews before the end of the world. Francis Turretin mentions this in the third volume of his Institutes (the 18th Topic, Question 9), for instance, and the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that such a hope is implicit in the Lord's Prayer:
> Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in...
That said, the current geopolitical nation of Israel is against Christ. Although I have not read it, The Israel of God by O. Palmer Robertson has been recommended to me.
> Secondly, I'm really wondering about the apostles. Not just their history, but the theology behind them. What did it take to be an apostle?
The apostles were sent out (as in the verb ἀποστέλλω) by Christ as the great Apostle (John 20:21, Hebrews 3:1). Mark 3:14-19, 6:30; John 20:21-23; and 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 show the apostleship of the twelve disciples.
> If Peter was greater, then why does it appear that James had more authority in Acts 15 or we have more of Paul's letters?
He who would become great in the kingdom of God is to become a servant, ministering to others (Matthew 20:26-28). The apostles all shared equal authority, as they were all sent out by Christ with the same commission.
Although the first to confess Christ, Peter did not lord his apostolic authority over others. Diotephes loved to have preeminence, while Peter counted himself as a fellow-presbyter (συμπρεσβύτερος) among colleagues in the ministry, not even the first among equals (3 John 1:9, 1 Peter 5:1). On the contrary, the apostle exhorted his presbyterian associates to be ministers of God, not masters exercising tyranny over the Church (1 Peter 5:1-4).
> Was Paul counted as one of the 12? If so, who did he replace? If 12 wasn't too significant to the overall picture, then why start with 12 and add more later?
The number twelve is significant, since the twelve apostles are the faithful witnesses to the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:29-30, Acts 1:8, James 1:1, Revelation 21:14).
Paul, however, was an apostle to the Gentiles, not to the twelve tribes of Israel (Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:16, 2:8). This may also explain why we have the most letters from him.
> Was an apostle always someone who had divine authourity? Then shouldn't we have their writings? Why does Paul say one of the ways you can know he's an apostle is by his suffering? And how would the Jews at that time have seen the role of apostle? Was it analogous to any priestly or prophetic duty?
An apostle had priority over a prophet (1 Corinthians 12:28). For a general overview, you may want to read the entry on Apostle in John Brown of Haddington's A Dictionary of the Holy Bible.
> I'm wondering if there are any other works on the Sabbath history? How did the first 8 centuries of the church handle this question?
I would very much recommend The Sabbath Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History by James Gilfillan. At the beginning of the book the author sketches the "Sabbatic controversies and literature prior to the Reformation," and proceeds to summarize the first six centuries of the Christian era:
> Among the Fathers and early Christian writers, no fewer than thirty-one out of forty-seven have adverted, with less or more brevity, to the Sabbatic institution. Both as combatants against Pagan and Jewish errors, and as witnesses, whose testimony, justly held worthy of attention and respect, is to be adduced in another part of this volume, they claim in this place a brief notice:—
> First Century.—Within the period comprised in New Testament history, only two instances occur in which uninspired writers refer to a stated time for religious worship. In a.d. 68-70, Clemens Romanus wrote his celebrated Epistle from the Church of Rome, of which he was bishop or presbyter, to that of Corinth, in which he refers to the seasons of worship as by Christ instituted and commanded to be observed. ...
> Barnabas, another fellow-labourer of Paul, whose Catholic Epistle (a.d. 71 or 72) has for its object to show that the Mosaic dispensation was divinely superseded by the Christian, expressly mentions the universal celebration by the Church of the eighth day as a holy day, in place of the former seventh day. This epistle, written, as Lardner has unanswerably shown, a year or two after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is quoted as the work of Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and was, like the preceding, read in some of the early churches along with the Scriptures.
> Second Century.—In the early part of this century, in 107, or more probably, as some suppose, in 116, Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, and afterwards bishop of Antioch, suffered martyrdom, being, by order of the Emperor Trajan, conveyed to Rome, and exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. On his way to Rome he wrote letters to various churches... In the letter to the Church of Magnesia, there occurs a passage which has been frequently adduced in proof that the Lord's Day was recognised and observed in his time.
> In his first Apology, addressed, in 138 or 139, to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, Justin [Martyr]...records the manner in which the Christians, in the early part of the second century, observed their weekly holy day; and, in his Dialogue with Trypho...vindicates them for not keeping the Jewish Sabbath. He was born in Palestine, about the year 100...and suffered martyrdom about 165.
> We are indebted to Eusebius for notices of three writers who flourished in 170. Melito, bishop of Sardis, was the author of several works, no longer extant, with the exception of a few fragments preserved by the historian, one of which is peculiarly valuable, as containing a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. Among his works, which had come to the hands of Eusebius, was one περί κυριακῆς—on the Lord's Day, this title alone now surviving of what appears to have been the first distinct treatise on the institution. ...
Etc. This is only a prelude, however, to a study of the entire history of the Sabbath from a Reformed perspective.
If you want to read a history of Puritan Sabbatarianism, there is [The Market Day of the Soul](https://www.amazon.com/Market-Day-Soul-James-Dennison/dp/1573580627/).
> How do our cultural trends affect how we worship on the Lord's Day. How does Sabbatarianism deal with the Sabbath usually starting on the sundown of the "day" before?
If you can read it, William Gouge explains this in The Sabbath's Sanctification.
> Question 48. When begins the Lord's Day?
> Ans. In the morning. Act. 20.7.
> When Paul came to the Church at Troas, he had a mind to spend a Lord's day with them, though he was in great haste to depart so soon as he could. He came therefore to their assembly at the time that they came together according to their custom: but he kept them till the end of the day: (for he would not travel on the Lord's day) and having dismissed the assembly, he departed. Now it is said that he continued his speech till midnight (Acts 20.7), even till break of day (verse 11), and then departed: which departure of his is said to be on the morrow. By this punctual expression of the time, it appears that the first day of the week, the Lord's day, ended at midnight, and that then the morrow began. Now to make a natural day, which consisteth of twenty four hours, it must begin and end at the same time: for the end of one day is the beginning of another. There is not a minute betwixt them. As therefore the Lord's day ended at midnight, so it must begin at midnight, when we count the morning to begin. Which is yet more evident by this phrase (Mat. 28.1) In the end of the Sabbath (namely of the week before, which was the former Sabbath) as it began to dawn (namely on the next day, which was the Lord's day). Or (as Joh. 20.1) when it was yet dark there came divers to anoint the body of Jesus, but they found him not in the grave: he was risen before: so as Christ rose before the sun.
There is more.
> How practically should we handle this day?
A good place to start is chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the related catechism questions (Questions 57 to 62 of the Shorter and Questions 115 to 121 of the Larger). Fisher's Catechism of the Smaller Catechism elaborates in more detail. For even more detail, you can read [The True Doctrine of the Sabbath*](https://www.amazon.com/Sabbathum-Veteris-Novi-Testamenti-Doctrine/dp/160178399X/) by Nicholas Bownd.
There's a great book called Sex and Violence in the Bible that goes through ALL the references in the OT to this kind of thing and it's really pretty persuasive that modesty is actually pretty absolute, not from prescriptive references per se but like if you look at the prophecies and the immodesty God uses to shame Israel, Proverbs, etc., it's actually pretty specific and well-defined, especially when you look at all the references as a whole.
That said, I can't really list them all out without plagiarizing the book, because a lot of it had to do with looking at the word choices in Hebrew, etc. I recommend the book.
Lou, have you read Jana Riess’ The Next Mormons? Because I think you’d appreciate her research.
I haven't insulted you, yet, and I assumed nothing. Your words are here for all to see. If someone espouses foolish or idiotic beliefs, that person is probably a fool, idiot, or uninformed. Clearly, you are not uninformed.
edit: Oh, the David Montgommery video. I am familiar with his work, and I don't need to watch it to know that you totally missed his points... like totally! His work is cited a bit in The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth which was written by two Christian geologists(which I have read). In it, they use Scripture and science to expose the fraud of Young Earth Creationists, and to dispel the nonsense of the Noah myth.
Two sources for you, that will answer your question better than this poll will:
The short answer: No—most people do not leave because they were offended.
> I have given no where near equal respect or thoughtful consideration to the actual arguments of the "other side.
I grew up in the church so I feel like I came at it from the other side but I've had similar thought recently because I've been an atheist for years now and have started doing similar things.
This holiday break I read a couple books written by Christians about religion. One was an apologetics book which is a response to The God Delusion. It was terrible. I threw it across the room a couple times because it was so badly argued. It was clear they had never talked to an atheist. (For example they argued that the reason atheists are angry all the time is because we know we are wrong and are living with cognitive dissidence. Ridiculous.) Another was (here) was written by two Christians who are geologists arguing against YEC. It was good. I learned A LOT about geology. (please don't become a YEC :)
Needles to say I remain unconvinced on the existence of God but I think it is worth looking into apologetics books and listening to arguments from the other side.
>However, we have not established that if someone received divine instruction fro God today to, for example, go pronounce judgement on a city and burn it to the ground, that it would contradict with Scripture.
I'm sorry, I can't keep doing this anymore.
However, if you PM me your email address, I would be happy to gift to you an ebook copy of this book if you promise to read it. Or if you live in the US, send me your physical address instead and I will ship you the paperback. Whichever version you would be more likely to read. I cannot recommend this book too highly.
Or the Audible version, if you prefer.
And here is the bible
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dude-Ching-Church-Latter-Day/dp/1453649948
I did some digging, and I believe it was this: In The Beginning… We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden
I'd also add this book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MTGMC7K
​
All doctrinal issues aside, a very real consequence of the church's policies, teachings, and actions with regards to LGBT people and issues has been a sharp disengagement from rising generations who regularly and increasingly cite this as a reason for leaving the faith. It's also cited as a reason that some would come back (if the church changed its stance on this).
That's a real consequence - again independent of what one thinks or believes regarding rightness or wrongness of the church's LGBT policies/teachings/actions.
If you go through my history, notice how I sometimes make posts to subs like r/statistics, r/machinelearning or r/sql. In this post do you notice how I'm asking specific questions about a research paper that I'd read? Here's a direct link to the paper from that post that I was talking about. I just said all of that to say that I'm well aware of the fact peer review was a thing. lol.
Or the last book that MLK wrote before being assassinated was the last book in the ADOS book club. Have you read it? It is essentially a guide on how King things ADOS should do politics in America. He knew these white folks were after him and he essentially left an instruction manual on what to do once he was gone. That book completely changed my view of politics.
Like I said, I realize that you have made some valid points but I think the dangers presented in the peer reviewed papers and the books written by Econ professors poses a greater danger to our people. I also noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious conversation. I'm open to being proven wrong, but so far I have actually heard any of the anti ados people actually make an argument the way that I've seen ados make. Like I said, I'll be here if you want to actually want to have a conversation.
John Pavlovitz's A Bigger Table comes out next week... Very excited to read it. I'm agnostic but still love his message.
https://www.amazon.com/Bigger-Table-John-Pavlovitz/dp/0664262678
Product description
No one likes to eat alone; to approach a table filled with people, only to be told that despite the open chairs there isn't room for you. The rejection stings. It leaves a mark. Yet this is exactly what the church has been saying to far too many people for far too long: You're not welcome here. Find someplace else to sit. How can we extend unconditional welcome and acceptance in a world increasingly marked by bigotry, fear, and exclusion?
Pastor John Pavlovitz invites readers to join him on the journey to find or build a church that is big enough for everyone. He speaks clearly into the heart of the issues the Christian community has been earnestly wrestling with: LGBT inclusion, gender equality, racial tensions, and global concerns. A Bigger Table: Building Messy, Authentic, Hopeful Spiritual Community asks if organized Christianity can find a new way of faithfully continuing the work Jesus began two thousand years ago, where everyone gets a seat.
Pavlovitz shares moving personal stories and his careful observations as a pastor to set the table for a new, more loving conversation on these and other important matters of faith. He invites us to build the bigger table Jesus imagined, practicing radical hospitality, total authenticity, messy diversity, and agenda-free community.
Another book you might enjoy...
A Bigger Table https://www.amazon.com/dp/0664262678/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_pnt4Ab79T0BNQ
It only deals with one issue, and not with liberal Christianity as a whole, but Love is an Orientation is a great book for helping conservative Christians better understand the other side of the homosexuality debate.
Yes, but there's a problem with charity--even charity done with good intentions--when it is done without fully understanding the needs of the community you are trying to help. Toxic Charity by Robert Lupton is an excellent read and gets into the problem and how to fix it.
Also, check out /r/thepuritans for some good quotes. I haven't posted much recently, but the archive is full of some good stuff (not all strictly Puritan, though)
I'm sorry you and your partner are having to deal with that. Rejection in the name of God, or "I love you but I dont support you wholly because it's against God's will" is all too common and I believe is completely antithetical to what faith is meant for. And, it's frustrating, painful and confusing. I'm a trans Christian and I have had family members insinuate that I don't follow Jesus any more because I'm "no longer following scripture." I don't really have much to say in terms of how to talk with them or where to set boundaries, but I thought I'd pass along some resources that have helped me in discussing with my conservative Christian family.
My friend Austen is a trans Christian theologian and educator. His book Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians takes a look at interpretations of the Bible that do not lead to "I love you but can't support you fully because it's against scripture."
Gender spectrum also has a page responding to the common "clobber passages" used against trans people in Jewish and Christian scripture.
>it's just surreal that the natives of this land only gained the right to vote in it less than one century ago and it's kind of sickening to think about how archaic this time is.
I don't want to look like I'm forming a pity party, but the Civil Rights Movement didn't really help out Indian Country. We had to have our own round of protests and fighting in the 1970s. Check out the American Indian Movement, the Occupation of Alcatraz Island and especially the Alcatraz Proclamation, among others. What really stunning is that the American Indian Religious Freedom Act didn't come about until 1978, let alone the fact that they had to pass it at all!
>Are there any books, movies, or another form of media that are true stories or realistic fiction that depict American Indians in a way that you find to be interesting and faithful?
Anything by Vine Deloria, Jr. is awesome, although he is more historian and scientist than he is story-teller. A short list of my favorites:
If you want to read some great fiction that depicts American Indians accurately, start with Sherman Alexie:
Outside of those authors, some popular picks are Black Elk Speaks and Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.
As far as movies go, any self-respecting Indian has seen the movie Smoke Signals dozens of times. Powwow Highway is a favorite of mine, and Dance Me Outside is movie gold, although it doesn't get enough attention.
>I'm thinking - why hasn't HBO or some big network done a drama that focuses on American Indians? This could be a very interesting book, as well... Or is this idea something even somewhat appealing to you as a young American Indian?
I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I have my own ideas. I'd like to see a series that focuses on a single reservation for each episode, and details the hardships that the people of that reservation deal with on a daily basis. Call it a pity party, but there are children in the United States right now that live in houses with dirt floors and sleep on pallets and go to school on 30-year-old school buses on unkempt dirt roads (and sometimes off-road) where they learn a curriculum outdated for a decade or more........ I can go on and on. Get in your car and drive to Pine Ridge Reservation RIGHT NOW, you'll be convinced that you walked into a third world country in the middle of a war. Its not pretty. The corruption in the tribal government needs to be put in the spotlight, and the part that the Federal and State governments have played in this tragedy need to be righted. That's the facts.
I've heard some people who hold a very high view of Scripture point out that unlike the rest of Genesis (which is presented as history), the beginning is written in a distinct style—specifically, as a challenge to the ancient Near-Eastern creation myths the original audience was familiar with.
Something to look into.
Another interesting book. Especially if you're a BR fan. Good points made on both sides.
When one lives out in the country, in the south, within spitting distance of one of the biggest mega-churches in the country it's hard to tell when someone is joking about that subject and when they're serious.
Here's a link to the book written by the most popular preacher from the town I live in:
http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Agenda-Dividing-Family-Church/dp/0892215828/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1322332472&sr=8-3
I got it for my best friend (who's been gaily married for 1.5 years now) and his head almost exploded. Poor bastard couldn't stop reading it.
> I don't know where you get that connotation from
Maybe you aren't aware of this but the term "Gay Agenda" or "Homosexual Agenda" is very popular and commonly used amongst conservative conspiracy theorists claiming that the gay and lesbian struggle for equal human rights is actually a ploy for some sort of gay supremacy. That's where I get the connotation.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure you're arguing against a position that I'm not actually taking. I'm not saying he can't spend money trying to make it illegal for gays to marry. It is okay for him to do that. It is then okay for a few hundred people (thousands, maybe?) to voice their discontent with his appointment to the CEO of a large company/corporation/whatever Mozilla is. We are in agreement that if he was forced out of the position because of his political position he probably has a legal venue to follow. Now, if you want to talk about Tyranny of the Majority, that might be an interesting discussion - though just because the majority believe something doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
I like both of the movies you quoted. While we're throwing out seemingly-related movie quotations, I'd like to share this one from *Mr Smith Goes to Wasthington"
>[After reading the Declaration of Independence] Now, you're not gonna have a country that can make these kind of rules work, if you haven't got men that have learned to tell human rights from a punch in the nose
If by "media", you mean, "reddit", then you might be right. I also listen to talk radio all the time (weird obsession), so Beck and Rush do a good job of convincing me themselves.
I actually agree with the tea baggers primary concerns, especially fiscally and constitutionally. I think free markets should be regulated for MORAL and ETHICAL reasons, and to promote financial STABILITY; but other than that...yup, more responsible, more state rights, ethical capitalism.
They're still dominated by religious nutters, though. Every major movement in the republican party since the Reagan era has been driven by religious fundamentalists and talk show hosts.
As for governing my speach; whatever....whatever, I do what I want! This is America, and if you don't like it you can get out! I think you take my comments to seriously; do your own damn research.
Here's a few books I've found informative:
Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God
The Culture Wars
Frank Schaeffer's Crazy For God
Francis Shaeffer's How Should We then Live?
There’s a difference between reading that certain things took place, reading graphic descriptions of those events, and seeing graphic depictions of those events. So something visual with a high rating could have a much lower rating when it is in written form.
Also. Scripture classes would be supervised by adults already.
There’s a book called ‘Sex, violence and the Bible’ by Joseph W. Smith that looks at what sort of explicit content there is and what purpose it serves.
Marin himself wrote a book, which I highly recommend. :)
That's a long winded answer. Read Francis Schaeffer's book, this one. And also people that claim to be Christians don't act like it. They get a tiny bit of pressure and get worried that they will be judging or hypocritical if they go against the flow. Take the idiot husband and wife on "Brother, Husband" which is a polygamist family. His best friend came to the conclusion that he loved his best friends wife. So he came clean. And instead of manning up and telling him to get lost, he talked to his wife, and they are now polygamist.
If your goal is to do something about it, then I would suggest two things. Raising awareness of the issues, and praying for revival. We need one in the US like it's life and death, because this is the best life a lot of folks are going to know if we don't reach them.
Close enough:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1453649948?pc_redir=1405374776&robot_redir=1
And:
The Dude and the Zen Master by Jeff Bridges http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0085DOFZU/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_K0b0tb08P889F
I know this is an old post, but if you want an interesting book to read about Greg Graffin's positions on religion: http://www.amazon.com/Belief-God-Good-Bad-Irrelevant/dp/0830833773
I don't know about all that, but it sounds like a good book for you to check out is "In The Beginning: We Misunderstood"--at least in regards to Genesis 1.
The article I linked happened to be talking about the recession, but the numbers are still split about the same even before the recession.
No matter which way you slice it, the majority of church funds are spent on facilities and staffing. The next category is entertainment for club-members. The last and smallest category is what would be considered 'good works' be that in the community, or (even less) in the world at large.
>Most of the US churches are doing works outside of the US.
It's a fallacy to think that a significant amount of funds/effort from US churches are being done to help the world at large. And even when they are 'helping' it's often done in a manner that's poorly thought-through and emphasizes the 'feel goods' of church members over the 'needs met' of the people it's meant to help. (See: Toxic Charity)
Sure there are some churches that are better than others. (You should see the financials of some of the mega-churches in the DFW region, they're pretty disgusting.) Some churches really have low facility costs, volunteer ministers, and focus on building up the world around them. Sadly they're the minority.
Kinda. She also used the somewhat different policies and platforms of places like Romania, which don't have much in common with the American Christian right. Her argument was that nothing happens in the novel that hasn't happened somewhere in the world. If you put them all together, they're kinda incoherent.
Also, the American Christian right aka the "Moral Majority" isn't anywhere near as powerful as they were in 1985. All of the major players from 1985 are dead. Nobody's called themselves that in 15 years. I'd go so far as to say that they're nearly powerless. Trust me, as a formerly conservative Christian, I watched it happen around me.
That's why you've got serious conservative Christian writers writing books like this about how Christians may just want to give up on influencing society altogether. So, the same kinds of things that more moderate to liberal Christian writers have been saying since the 1960s.
Remember when everyone was afraid George Bush would implement a theocracy in like 2001?
Great band, great lyrics.
You might want to read "Is belief in God good, bad, or irrelevant", a collection of correspondence between Greg and a pastor. They discuss some pretty interesting topics.
Two good books on this are:
Resident Aliens
and
The Myth of a Christian Nation
I have a suggestion for you then: read (normally archaeological) works about the civilizations that lived before, not the interactions with Europeans. This stuff is way, way more interesting that you would think, especially since the cultural differences are sometimes enormous. Reading some anthropology papers are also more interesting, and I'll put some links there, too; usually western history books gloss over these societies and make them out to be really insignificant, and that can't be further from the truth. Some non-historical texts can be just an important to lend an understanding of a very different culture (Wisdom Sits in Places and God is Red are really good examples of this; place and time are thought of very differently in many indigenous American societies, which puts a lot into perspective).
Here's a good reading list for you:
Medeival Mississippians
[An Iroquoian case study by Bruce Trigger] (https://books.google.com/books?id=MpJOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=maintaining+economic+equality+in+opposition+to+complexity:+an+Iroquoian+case+study&source=bl&ots=ZlY1S6JABK&sig=rZD4WxfM_CVIKwZ7SAeyJeR80gk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMvKTXv9nUAhWIMyYKHaqMBDsQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=maintaining%20economic%20equality%20in%20opposition%20to%20complexity%3A%20an%20Iroquoian%20case%20study&f=false) about Iroquoian culture using historical texts, which was really interesting. They had a totally gift-based economy, worth reading this; in this link it seems to be readable for free from Google books
In search of Chaco
Everything you know about Indians is wrong
Wisdom Sits in Places
God is Red
Preston Sprinkle has a book called "Fight" that is a case for non-violence and so he deals with this.
Mostly he follows along with the first explanation you listed, but admits it difficulties. I think he does a good job fleshing it all out though.
It's currently only $2 on Kindle, and worth the money for sure.
Just wanted to link you to these two books. The first one is good; I can't vouch for the second. I found the second while looking for the first. Looks like there's several more, too!
Check out this book:
unChristian by Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons (http://www.unchristian.com/)
They've done an entire study on this topic and have shared their discoveries here. "Study" makes it sound inaccessible, but it's actually very readable. And it talks about many of the things mentioned in the comments here.
I'm sorry we Christians have been such dorks about all of this. Jesus really is very cool. We have done a terrible job of communicating that.
Check out the table of contents here to see what topics they address.
So sorry to hear you had struggles with good male role models. I actually think Mormon men make pretty great role models, and my dad was very much present in my life, and the LDS church really urges guys to have a very active role in their kids lives. Also, the church takes a lot of time making sure teens have good experiences, and I actually really liked several things about being a teenager (but others not so much). On the good side, I had very cool youth leaders (similar to youth pastors) that came up with great activities and were very easy to relate to. They always heard me out on my questions and so there were great role models throughout the church. Leadership is particularly important for men in Mormonism, and while this is sometimes at the expense of girls getting leadership opportunities (for example, many congregations will spend quite a bit of their yearly budgets getting boys involved in outdoors programs and other activities where they will have chances to be leaders and learn skills. Girls often are left with whatever is left over. But this is starting to change.) On the problematic side, leadership does conduct worthiness interviews with teens. Some leaders keep this brief and casual and really only bother to dig into things if the kids bring it up. Others, like the leaders I had growing up, will specifically ask about certain things like masturbation, porn use, sexual activity, etc to really probe and dig into whether or not the teens are doing what they were supposed to. I struggled a long time with feelings of being unworthy, I felt pretty worthless and struggled a lot with my self esteem once I started to get interviewed like that. That, I would say, was a downside and left me with resentment and I, after seeking some help dealing with some of the residual feelings I had from those years, realize that my general distrust of men stems from those interviews and some of my mom's attitudes and actions, because I was convinced that every man was more or less a sexual predator at heart based on what the leadership would often say was something they were making sure people weren't doing to justify what they would ask in interviews, and what my mom would say about men in general and more targeted comments at me. It's something I still struggle with quite a bit. So yeah, pros and cons, haha.
So when it comes to politics, Mormons are generally conservative, and generally republican. In some regions of the US Mormons tend to be slightly more progressive and liberal compared to their Utah counterparts, but are still very generally Republican. Utah is very conservative, especially outside of Salt Lake County. A lot of this is actually discussed in that same research I talked about above. That said, Millennial Mormons, across the board, are generally more progressive and liberal than their parents were, and LGBTQ issues are a big topic there. Basically just look at the general trends in the US, adjust them to be slightly more conservative, and that's more or less where Mormons tend to stand. See some conversation around this here and here. And while I haven't read it myself, if you're interested in further details on this topic, it's worth getting The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church where most of this research is documented.
There is a great summary I've heard about Mormon politics that is pretty well stated in this article:
>If you gave the typical Mormon a quiz on being a conservative, he or she would ace it. Socially conservative mixed with the small government views of the Mountain West, most Mormons hold conservative positions on the major issues of the day.
>
>That said, there are some nuances. On abortion, Mormons support the view of the LDS Church, which permits abortion in the case of rape or the life of the mother. Mormons are more supportive of allowing abortion in these cases than the average American (that’s right: in these cases, Mormons are the most pro-choice). But on abortion in general, Mormons are among the most pro-life, opposing abortion because the mother is in poverty or has other private reasons for making her decision.
>
>Mormons are also more in favor of immigration, particularly compared to the average Republican. One reason is the exposure to other cultures. Mormons are more likely to see immigration as a good thing if they’ve gone on a mission, particularly a foreign mission.
I've noted these trends as well. In my experience, Mormons are not only more likely to support immigration policy, but general policies that allow for countries to mutually benefit instead of pushing for the US to get the best deal, for example. I've also noticed that Mormons tend to be much more supportive of Muslim and Jewish communities than some Christian conservatives I know of (I have family who are in other Christian denominations that are VERY negative in how the talk about Muslims, in particular). Mormons don't frame religious freedom from a Christian perspective as much as some religious conservatives do, in my experience.
As for what modern revelation means, and whether that will cause the LDS church to move in a more secular direction, it's hard to say. But that has been the trend, over time. Policy has tended to change in progressive ways over time, as I mentioned before, where the practice of polygamy and allowing for Black members of the church to have priesthood and go to the temple could be seen as progressive advances, potentially motivated by external pressures. But that does not take the whole picture into account, as many LDS members are very adamant that those changes were due to revelation, and that the revelation should be trusted even if it seems to follow a trend. I think there is merit to both sides of that argument.
Another change that has recently happened was that the LDS church had a pretty strong, if mostly cultural, stance that people weren't really gay, but giving in to temptation or allowing sin to cloud their judgement. This is a position made clear in the book by Spencer W. Kimball, who served as an apostle and then President of the LDS church, called The Miracle of Forgiveness, where he claims that practices like masturbation or inappropriate thoughts would lead someone to homosexual behavior (see a brief discussion on this here). It was quite clear that it was not something that was an inherent part of a person, but rather something they learned through sin. Even more recently, Apostle David Bednar stated "there are no homosexual members of the church" where he basically says that homosexual attraction is merely a temptation rather than an actual part of a person's identity. While this stance is not necessary gone in Mormonism, it is no longer a punishable offense for someone to say they are gay and openly identify as gay, as shown in the "Mormon and Gay" site I linked above, where someone can be both Mormon and Gay. Many people speculate that, with that subtle shift, it could be an indication that leadership in the future may be more open to the idea of homosexual relationships eventually being allowed under certain situations. Personally, I think that there is doctrinal space for the idea of "for life only" marriages between gay couples in Mormonism, and it will be interesting to see if that happens. But, that sort of speculation is hardly a reason to decide to stay or go. Ultimately, if you feel the conviction that the LDS church is god's church, then that is the standard that the LDS church requires to join.
> Brought up in reference to sexual themes.
I see?
> Enough that a foundation was created to encourage emulation of him and the other academic artists.
Wasn't aware of that. Being popular with one particular wealthy conservative donor doesn't necessarily equate to popular with conservatives in general. I guess I can see how one of the last hold-outs for an older representative style would have some appeal for someone who thinks modern art is shit (and let's face it... a lot of it really is)
> I’m not familiar with him. Got a link?
I mentioned it above: How Should we Then Live by Francis Schaeffer.
The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes
> 'I shall never cease to be grateful to...Richard Sibbes who was balm to my soul at a period in my life when I was overworked and badly overtired, and therefore subject in an unusual manner to the onslaughts of the devil...I found at that time that Richard Sibbes, who was known in London in the early seventeenth century as "The Heavenly Doctor Sibbes" was an unfailing remedy...The Bruised Reed.. quieted, soothed, comforted, encouraged and healed me.' --D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
The bruised reed and the smoldering wick. What you are experiencing is something that Christians large and small face at times in their life. There are those early days when the flame of our passion and zeal is strongly burning and there are days where it seems to be barely lit.
This book provides excellent insight into those lower times. It's gentle words are a good reminder for the professed Christian to move forward and thoughts around how to do that.
In reading this book I was sorely disappointed that I didn't read this earlier in my Christian walk. It is currently a help and will continue to be so in the future. Good words to meditate on throughout the day.
Of additional recommended reading materials (along with scripture) this would rank in my top 5.
The Poor People's Campaign was a poor people's movement, yes. MLK had written and voiced his support for what he called Guaranteed Income, which is what we know as UBI nowadays.
In his book, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community", MLK argued in 1967 for Guaranteed Income as a way to lift up the poor more effectively than minimum wage.
In short, UBI was one of the policies he was fighting for in that Poor People's Campaign when he died a year later in 1968. Saying that he wasn't fighting for UBI is like saying he wasn't fighting for voting rights in 1963 on the March to Washington just because it was fighting for economic and civil rights for African Americans.
> "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
If you really want to know you should read this book. I heard the author give a talk based off the book and have it ordered. Part of the book is explaining that when Jesus was confronted by these sorts of questions he did not simply answer yes or no.
Its been explained a lot here before and usually the answer that it is a sin is downvoted, most likely by atheists who misunderstand what downvoting is for but I obviously cannot prove it.
> Why is he getting downvoted? It is true that it is a sin
Because it actually isn't. The four or five verses in the Bible that are cited to be used against homosexuals are actually in reference to rape, slavery and being a person of authority over a minor.
That people's genders are the same is a moot point.
>I don't want to believe you.
Then go read a book.
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Orientation-Elevating-Conversation-Community/dp/0830836268
Busts the hell out of the "homosexuality is a sin" myth.
EDIT: Bwahaha at all the die-hard homophobes and Bible-beating, men's bathroom stall trolls jumping at the chance to throw their translations of translations of translations at someone that doesn't give a shit about their sexual hang ups.