Read a book like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223

Try to find a copy of this incredible 3 episode PBS series: http://www.pbs.org/show/your-inner-fish/

Visit a good natural history museum

Watch this 4 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

Go to a zoo.

Read Darwin's On The Origin Of Species...This abridged audio production is fairly easy to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpU8HfUwdmY

It's easy to say 'I can't see evolution happen', but I could just as easily say 'I can't see a tree grow'. I really can't, but walking through a forest and seeing different sized trees should be enough for me to reasonably assume that they do.

You don't need to be a biochemist to see similar proof for evolution. It can be very clearly inferred from all sorts of things around you right now.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold /u/rjkardo!!

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)

In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.

John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)

If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.

Concerning atheism.

These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.

Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)

In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.

Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)

In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.

Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)

In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.

My personal picks.

Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.

Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)

This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.

Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)

Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.

CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)

This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.


Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.

It is absolutely laudable that you would explore the Catholic Church as an option for your faith. I hope and pray that the Lord grants you the grace to pursue this action fully.

>Questions:

The answer to your first two questions is a resounding, "No."

In your final question, you are correct. You would not be able to receive the Eucharist. There really is no, "But what else?" because the Eucharist is our Faith. If you do not have that, then what else is there to want?

You will damage your relationship with God, your communion with the Church, and quite possibly your relationship with your wife. More is to be said below.

>Issues

• Perceived Hypocrisy - I assume that you are referring to NFP versus contraception. If, as you see it, both methods are used to avoid conception, then why is the Church for one and against the other?
  
  This is an excellent question to have. You should keep in mind, however, that NFP should not be used with a contraceptive mentality.
  
  You see, in contraception, there are simply some logical psychological consequences with its use, which are primarily:
  
  
• The sexual embrace is no longer about the union of persons or the openness to life, but about "pleasure without consequences."
  
  
• Children are seen as an "unintended consequence" to sex (which makes no sense in the context of any creature who reproduces sexually), but also as something to be feared and avoided. They are a burden to the married life, and a threat to further sexual intimacy.
  
  With NFP, however, even if you have licit reasons for avoiding conception you are using the woman's natural fertility cycle to do so and you are still open to life. NFP is not only about avoiding conception, but also about achieving it.
  
  There are some consequences for the use of NFP as well:
  
  
• Couples must be open and communicate with each other more and more about the nature of their sexual intimacy. When the woman is learning about the beautiful cycle in her body, she has to communicate that information to her husband, and her husband has to be open to having a conversation about sexual intimacy. This can, quite often, lead to no sexual intimacy at all - but it also allows the couple to redirect their desires for other forms of intimacy.
  
  
• Children are still seen as the natural consequence of the act and, while (new) parents may have their own personal insecurities with the idea of becoming a mother or father, children are still seen as a blessing.
  
  In NFP there is an openness to life that takes various forms. In contraception, there is not.
  
  Here, it is important to talk about the nature of the sexual act. The Church uses natural law in addition to Scripture and Tradition to develop her moral philosophies.
  
  Natural law looks at the nature for which a thing was created or its purpose, its design. To put it very simply, the Church has professed that the sexual act has always and everywhere had a twofold purpose: (1) to be unitive and (2) to be ordered to procreation.
  
  If you remove one of those two aspects, you violate the nature of the act, and thus violate the nature of the person.
  
  
• Onan
  
  I am inclined to believe that you have read much non-Catholic literature on the subject of Onan and his sin. Suffice it to say that I have not seen many Catholic commentators deal with the subject specifically.
  
  Here are two articles that may help: How is NFP Different from the Sin of Onan? and NFP vs. Contraception.
  
  
• Girlfriend and Health
  
  That depends very much on what health "benefits" she is receiving from HBC. If it is primary dysmenorrhea, then I am afraid that will not suffice. If it is from bad acne, that is not a legitimate reason either.
  
  In fact, the only licit way she could use anything that acts as a contraceptive if it is for a legitimate, life-threatening health concern and there are absolutely no other alternatives for her to use as medication.
  
  I highly, highly, highly recommend reading The Theology of the Body by St. John Paul II and any commentaries you can find on the subject - primarily trusting in sources from Chris Stefanick, Jason Evert, and Fr. Robert Barron.

To answer the question, one must consider all three components of the morality of the act: object, intent, circumstances. Object and intent alone can render an act morally good or evil, whereas the circumstances can only increase or diminish the goodness or evil of an act.

Placing all three components together and considering first a set of circumstances, then intent, and then object, will be particularly edifying as these last two are elements going to vary and what the question concerns.

As an example, consider a couple having sex in wedlock; these will be the circumstances, and the circumstances are certainly good.

Next, consider the couple wants to, for good reasons (more on this later), delay the onset of children; this is the intent, one which is good by itself without any other qualifiers.

Finally, there are two means to delay the onset of children, as previously discussed. These will be the object chosen. The first is chemical/barrier contraception, and the second is NFP.

Use of chemical/barrier contraception in this way is always objectively disordered. As a result, even a couple in wedlock (which is good) intending to delay the onset of children for good reasons (which is good) is doing wrong by using contraceptives (which is bad). Bl. Pope John Paul II's encyclical Familiaris Consortio aids in explaining why:

> When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. emphasis ours

Use of NFP in this way is not objectively disordered. Why? He tells us in the very next paragraph:

> When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.
emphasis ours

Self-giving can be literally understood as the transmission of seed from the male to the woman and her reception of the seed in the procreative process into her, or the accepting of fertility by the male and the giving of fertility by the female. As the female's fertility naturally includes periods of infertility, there is no frustration in this process (the acceptance and giving of one's fertility) due to periods of natural infertility.

However, a barrier method of contracepting frustrates this in an obvious way. A chemical method of contraception frustrates it in a less obvious but still substantial way, effecting the transmission/reception of seed or frustrating the natural cycle of egg implantation. Bl. John Paul II understands this type of self-giving in light of our being created in the Imago Dei; he saw the body as an expression of God's creation, and the relation between husband and wife mirroring the nature of the Trinity and the act of creation. This is a deep mystery and one better explored through a careful reading of his life's work, Man and Woman He Created Them. These works merit attention on their own accord, and can't be done "true" justice on reddit (not only because of reddit's space constraints, but given Bl. John Paul II's deep theology and philosophy rooted as they are in the Christian understanding). In this way, the sexual self-giving of the spouses utilizing contraception is a literal lie, as there is no self-giving; one or both spouses is withholding of themselves.

In bullet points, use of contraceptives:

• places a barrier (physical or chemical) between the spouses, whereby total self-giving is impossible
  
  
• refuses cooperation in the natural cycles of fertility which God has ordained
  
  
• abuses the sexual faculty, treating that which is healthy as diseased
  
  
• makes an object one or both of the spouses for use as a tool of carnal satisfaction
  
  
• weakens the bonds of charity by abandoning chastity
  
  Whereas NFP:
  
  
• unites the spouses in total self-giving
  
  
• preserves the natural moral order of creation
  
  
• treats the sexual faculty and human body as good
  
  
• emphasizes the dignity of the person through education and understanding of their bodies
  
  
• strengthens the bonds of charity by embracing chastity
  
  So, when does NFP become sinful? Very simply, when the process is abused; when the intent is no longer to delay the onset of children for good reasons, but selfish ones. Altering that aspect of the act flips many of the above bullet points and renders the action subjectively disordered.
  
  It is true that the intent of an individual is so hard to gauge; for this reason certain persons would attempt to set NFP as "equal" to chemical/barrier contraceptives as a result of this objective vs subjective component to morality. They are correct that intent is, largely, an interior motivation which we are unable to gauge; however, they are incorrect to assign as equals contraceptives and NFP given the substantive differences in application. The couple using NFP is just as accountable to God as the couple using contraceptives. Further, with recourse to the pastoral care of the Church in regards to the subjective intent of practitioners, this objection is eliminated.
  
  As to the specific "modes" of NFP, there are many natural methods of regulating conception and birth whose "success rate" rivals or surpasses that of artificial contraceptives, without the disastrous "side" effects of chemically-induced periods of infertility, which include cancer. They include the Billings Ovulation Method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System, and others. These systems were pioneered by health care professionals and scientists, are minimally invasive, very low-cost, and involve both spouses in monitoring periods of fertility. To learn more about which system may work best for you, please consult some of the links listed below.
  
  ---
  
  Additional resources:
  
  Casti Connubii - "On Christian Marriage," Pope Pius XI, 1930 - an encyclical responding to doctrinal innovations by the Anglican communion concerning Christian marriage and the regulation of birth using artificial means
  
  Humanae Vitae - "Of Human Life," Pope Paul VI, 1968 - an encyclical reaffirming ancient Christian doctrine concerning the regulation of birth using artificial means and natural means
  
  Familiaris Consortio - "Of Family Partnership," Bl Pope John Paul II, 1981 - an encyclical concerning the Christian family, which addresses in part the harm contraceptives do to the marital union
  
  Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction - a health institute focused on Catholic teaching concerning the transmission of human life that provides an abundance of resources (educational material, points of contact, etc.) for couples interested in NFP
  
  Contraception: Why Not? - an informational talk given concerning the underlying reasons for our society's current acceptance of contraceptive use and the Catholic understanding and advantages of embracing Church teaching
  
  National Catholics Bioethics Center - a scientific institute dedicated to answering questions related to health, science, and the dignity of the human person, with additional resources concerning the Church's teaching on NFP and artificial contraceptives
  
  Learn NFP Online - online resource endorsed by the USCCB for instruction in some of the methods of NFP

As a Catholic, I agree that we should read what the other side has to say. My concern with Richard Dawkins is that he's a great scientist but a notoriously bad philosopher. Even a lot of atheist philosophers skewer him.

If science is your jam, I encourage you too look into the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer, a Catholic priest who has deeply studied astrophysics. You can find a lot of his talks on YouTube. He also has a book attempting to prove the existence of God based on recent developments in astrophysics: https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

I also encourage you the read Fides et ratio by Pope John Paul II which is a letter to the Church outlining the relationship between faith and reason (especially in response to some of the new scientific developments occurring during his pontificate): http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

Yeah, he made reference to well-known arguments for the existence of God that are easily found in such books as An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth and New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.

No Man is an Island By Thomas Merton

Clowning in Rome By Henri Nouwen.

The Great Divorce By C.S. Lewis

Beginning to Pray By Archbishop Anthony Bloom

For the Life of the World By Fr Alexander Schmemann

Christ the Conqueror of Hell By Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev

Christ the Eternal Tao By Hieromonk Damascene

The Way of the Pilgrim

Marriage as a Path to Holiness-Lives of Married Saints By David and Mary Ford

On the Incarnation By St Athanasius

On Social Justice By St Basil the Great

The Ladder of Divine Ascent By St John Climacus

I'm currently trying to finish Fr Seraphim Rose- His Life and Works for the third time and despite my apparent inability to complete it, I really do enjoy it.

By "not believe in birth control" I assume you mean "not believe contraception is moral". Obviously we believe that there exist pills that are referred to as "birth control" pills.

Contraception (verb) is immoral according to Natural Law philosophy, as well as Catholic Teaching.

It may seem like a hard pill to swallow (pun absolutely intended), but this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and has been (albeit less formally) for almost 2000 years. In fact, up until about a century ago, this belief was held more or less universally by all Christians.

If you're interested in why contraception is immoral, I suggest reading:

• Humanae Vitae
  
• Love and Responsibility
  
• Theology of the Body

Two books, one from an Orthodox, one from a Protestant perspective:

Christ the Conqueror of Hell

Hope Beyond Hell

You will find in these, and other books that, first, God doesn't send anyone to hell - hell is the end result of people refusing the mercy of God; and second, that there is a significant stream of Christianity that sees hell as corrective, and temporary.

You should read "Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton. Hutton is a professional historian who considers the emergence of wicca in the 20th century.

Here are some book suggestions. I have not read them, but they are on my reading list.

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace

"Prove" is a strong word. The fossil record provides extremely strong evidence for evolution from a common ancestor, but I concede that if that was all the evidence we have, I might not accept evolution either (though I am not a paleontologist... They might disagree).

But fossils are only one tiny bit of the overall evidence. In fact when Darwin formulated his theory, he didn't even have anything close to the fossil record we have now. His evidence came not from fossils but from comparative Anatomy and biogeology. And nowadays we have far more powerful evidence such as DNA & Genetics. I can completely understand why you don't accept evolution based solely on the fossil record, but if that is all you are looking at, you are ignoring the vast majority of the evidence.

If you sincerely want to know more, you can start on this Wikipedia page.. From there, I recommend either Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show on Earth. Both go into all the various bits of evidence, from all the various fields. Either one will give you a much deeper understanding of why the fossil record is very compelling evidence, but how it is far from the only evidence.

I became an atheist when I learned about the burden of proof.

I had lots of reasons I had thought of or heard about that made it impossible for someone to prove that God didn't exist.

All those reasons and explanations became irrelevant when I realized I was the person making the claim. Atheists would have no reason to say there was no god if I stopped claiming there was a god. I was the person who needed to show that God exists.

Then all my arguments stopped working. Evolution didn't disprove my god, but it didn't support it. The problem of evil didn't disprove my god, but it didn't support it. I realized I had no positive evidence for my god. I just had ways to negate any evidence against my god.

That is when I became an atheist.

My book recommendation would be Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. It is a very well-written book that had responses to all of my arguments for Christianity and responses to a lot of things I hadn't thought of yet.

I agree with the choices to avoid.

I would personally pick up The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?

Misquoting Jesus doesn't throw enough doubt for my taste.

i haven't read it, but The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins is probably in the vein of what you are looking for.

/u/Im_just_saying is an Anglican bishop and poster here who's written a fantastic book that I think would answer some of the questions you have, especially about the nature of sin and how exactly Jesus saved us.

If you want the general gist of it, check out this sermon he did.

This is a long post, so I'm putting this up front; if you read nothing else I've said, read this: Not talking about this with him is the wrong response. You absolutely must talk to him about this. Clear communication is crucial to a healthy marriage, much less a good sexual relationship.

Now, from what you say, there are probably issues for both of you here. I can't talk too much about his motivations, because we haven't heard from him, only from you--but I'll make an effort from my perspective as a husband in a moment.

First, let's take a quick look at what you've said: you find sex with your husband tedious and dirty. "Dirty" is a problem--a significant one--because marital sex is anything but dirty. To live chastely within marriage is to have marital sex. Marital sex is a reflection of Christ's love for the Church, and the love within the Godhead. It's a sacramental act of unity and life. You absolutely must abandon this notion that sex with your husband is dirty, but it won't be easy. Labeling sex as "dirty" is an easy way we repel our sexual desire when embracing it is sinful (e.g., as teenagers and when we're engaged). Forget that label. Sex isn't dirty. Extramarital sex is sinful; sex within marriage is a gift from God to express love and intimacy with our entire selves (body and soul).

The tedium of sex may be tied to several different issues. I do want to ask about the frequency of your intercourse: from what you say, it sounds like you're having sex regularly (daily a few months ago, several times per week now). Does that mean that you are not practicing NFP and periodic abstinence? Are you instead trying to have children now, or are you using artificial contraceptives?

I ask because artificial contraceptives, aside from being sinful, are known to have detrimental side effects in your sex life. Condoms reduce sensation for both parties. Hormonal contraceptives reduce your sex drive and (based on studies in other primates) may reduce your natural desirability to your mate. If this is the situation, it could contribute to his disinterest and your boredom.

Are you experiencing painful intercourse? My wife struggled with intercourse for our first year of marriage because she had conditions called vaginismus and vestibulodynia, which caused the whole experience to be excruciating rather than pleasant. We made a joint, sincere effort using multiple methods to reduce those conditions and improve her experience for months before we saw any real progress. That can be another factor.

What is your general attitude toward sex? Have you ever found it remotely pleasurable? If not, have you spoken to your husband about your experience in the bedroom? Or are you treating sex like a solemn duty you must perform so that he feels fulfilled? The entire process of human marital sex is for both husband and wife to enjoy it. In a technical sense, neither one of you "must" enjoy it in order for the other to do so, but it is more enjoyable for both of you if you both enjoy it. If you have ever felt pleasure during intercourse, talk to your husband about that--ask him to pursue that before satisfying himself. Satisfying him sexually is easy; satisfying you sexually probably takes a little work, and that should be a worthwhile pursuit.

Now, on to him for a moment. My guess is that he loves you. If he was unchaste before dating you, then he didn't marry you just to have sex with you (because he didn't have to get married to have sex); from what you have said, he remained chaste while dating you and engaged to you, too. Which means he does love you, but he may not know quite what that means (or should mean). Again, talk to him about his actions, about how you feel, about how he feels. Talk to him about your marriage, about your future together.

On the pornography: it almost definitely predates your marriage and your relationship and is absolutely never your fault. That's on him. You didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to do it, and even if you had, he still shouldn't have done it. Never blame yourself for this. I know that's difficult to accept, but it's the truth. He, and only he, is responsible for his sins. If you're the coldest wife in the world who refuses sex for twenty years straight, watching pornography and masturbating would still be his sins.

The most important thing here is for both of you to come to a real, clear understanding of what married life within the Church is. You need to read about the Theology of the Body. Here is a short, relatively easy book on the subject. Here is the longer book behind that book. Here is a tome with the religious and philosophical underpinnings of it all. Here is a short video and here is a long one. Others will hopefully post other resources (podcasts, videos, books, etc.). This is critical. It sounds like you and your husband both are lacking important information about how marriage works in the Catholic Church.

The second most important thing is for you to improve your communication with your husband. Here is a box set of short books that can help with that (these significantly improved communication between my wife and I). I've also seen these at a local library.

Your husband needs to commit to improving your marriage as much as you do. You must talk to him as soon as possible. Don't put it off. He should know that something is wrong, especially if he's choosing pornography over you.

More details will enable us to help you more, but nothing will help as much as clear communication with your husband and a dedication to building the best marriage possible.

May I suggest:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Trinity-Untangled-Sensible-Doctrine/dp/1502771047

I haven't read it personally, but have heard great things about it. Also its written by /u/im_just_saying

Why don't you try Dan Barker's book? "Losing Faith in Faith" He was a Preacher and became an atheist through time. Great story.

There is also "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity"

Oh, I almost forgot William Lobdell. He covered religion for the LA Times for years but after reporting so much on religion he became an atheist. Here's his site and here's his book "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace"

Good luck!

edit:fixed link
edit2:fixed grammatical error

I would not read On the Origin of Species to get an introduction to evolution. It is quite long winded, but that was the standard of the time.

I would start with Why is Evolution True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. At this point you should have a good grasp on the basics.

After reading these if you want a more technical introduction I would suggests The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.

Also YouCat and The Compendium for someone unfamiliar with the Catechism.

88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988

There is a book called "The Counter Creationism Handbook". It was made by some scientists who were tired of hearing the same old arguments against evolution that had been debunked/disproven years ago. It will give a common argument made by YECs, then give a bunch of counter arguments that span direct evidence, simple reason, and even theology.

Edited: link

Here is a list of almost 70 books on science and faith but my favorite one is The language of God

The AH books and resources list is your friend, but as its recommendations are scattered through a mainly geographical listing, I will compile some of the key cites for you here.

Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas (1971): One of the pioneering works on how anthropology can help our study of history focusing on superstition in the late medieval/early modern period, this is a fantastic read and a real insight into a still-young school of historical analysis.

Thinking with Demons by Stuart Clark (1999): this is one of two mandatory books on Early Modern Witchcraft (the other is Keith Thomas' Religion and the Decline of Magic). It's hard to summarize what is a monumental piece of work, but examines the idea of witches and how that idea functions through different intellectual sections of life. It has a bibliography that will make you weep with inadequacy and throw your work into the nearest witch-bonfire.

The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft by Ronald Hutton (1999). A study of the history and development of modern Pagan Witchcraft.

Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain by Ronald Hutton (2009). A history of the intertwined development of modern Celtic scholarship and religious revivalism in Britain.

The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe by Brian Levack: Levack gives important background and context to his discussion of the witch-hunt. The work's value as an introduction to the topic is evident, as the book is now in its third edition.

Theology and the Scientific Imagination: From the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century Funkenstein, Amos. 1986. An interesting read detailing the various views of emerging scientific thought and the prevalence of religious faith. The book takes time to work from a sociological as well as historical viewpoint to allow for a broader take.

For those interested, I am 100% sure this is the book his father was referring to: http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

My father and mother (when I was about 10 years old) bought me this book and asked me to read it. Its basically the author's life account about how he was an atheist (or agnostic, I'm unsure) while a law student and was writing a paper in which he would disprove Christianity's historical background.

While attempting to write the paper, he became a Christian. Its been a decade since I read the book so I cannot remember what was the turning point in his research, but maybe one of you knows?

Also, some have said around here that his father would make him read "the bible cover to cover" and at times I see other atheists like myself claim that they read the Bible in the same fashion. Most educated Christians would argue that you reading the Bible cover to cover does no good because of the organization of parables and metaphorical stories, and that it should be read with a guide. When I finished reading the bible it was after much guided reading in the way that most pastors are told to read it when studying it. I was and am an atheist, but I just thought I'd share that little bit of info.

http://strangenotions.com/jesus-did-exist/ .

Edit: Also, This book is completely free on Google...

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

Written by a guy who wanted to disprove Christianity and then became a Christian.

Loved it.

In addition to St. Thomas's five proofs, you can also check out Fr. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God.

Since you are Orthodox I have a book recommendation for you: Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. It is a great book and I think you'd enjoy it.

To your title question, I believe that people can be saved after they die. Why? Well Jesus Christ is the conqueror of death. Death holds no power or sway over God. I see nothing in scripture to suggest that God has limited salvation to only this life, nothing. God's mercy is never ending and his patience is eternal. Here is a great quote from George MacDonald that I think illustrates how preposterous the notion that God will somehow give up on those in hell really is:

>And what shall we say of the man Christ Jesus? Who, that loves his brother, would not, upheld by the love of Christ, and with a dim hope that in the far-off time there might be some help for him, arise from the company of the blessed, and walk down into the dismal regions of despair, to sit with the last, the only unredeemed, the Judas of his race, and be himself more blessed in the pains of hell, than in the glories of heaven? Who, in the midst of the golden harps and the white wings, knowing that one of his kind, one miserable brother in the old-world-time when men were taught to love their neighbor as themselves, was howling unheeded far below in the vaults of the creation, who, I say, would not feel that he must arise, that he had no choice, that, awful as it was, he must gird his loins, and go down into the smoke and the darkness and the fire, traveling the weary and fearful road into the far country to find his brother? -- who, I mean, that had the mind of Christ, that had the love of the Father?

We know exactly how it did. We do it all the time with artificial selection.

If you want proof, look no further than your dog or an ear of corn.

Here are a couple of compelling examples:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

Really, I feel silly even arguing this.

I highly recommend Bill Nye's Undeniable:

http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1451618364&sr=8-3&keywords=bill+nye

We typically recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Trinity-Untangled-Sensible-Doctrine/dp/1502771047/ because it was written by our very own /u/im_just_saying. He's generally happy to answer any questions you have and will likely find this pretty soon.

You may also prepare yourself with a classic critic of this cult:

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)
by John W. Loftus

Some opinions :
---------------------------
Here is what Dr. Geisler said (who is considered the DEAN of Christian apologetics, and wrote the Christian Encyclopedia of Apologetics, along with 70 other books): "[John's book] is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face."

---------------------

Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: "Of the spate of books coming from the so-called "New Atheists" that have appeared in the past few years--Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al--John W. Loftus's critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today's premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist."

--------------------

Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."

--------------------------

Below are some endorsements from skeptics:

--------------------------

Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: "The Outsider Test for Faith chapter should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion."

----------------------

Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God: "[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail. Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing."

"[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test. Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal."

--------------------------

Dr. John Beversluis, author of C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: "No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."

"'The Problem of Evil' (chapters twelve and thirteen)...contain one of the most penetrating and no-nonsense discussions of the problem that I have ever read. Readers who have taken the outsider test and absorb the lessons to be learned from these searching chapters, pondering Loftus's excruciatingly gruesome examples of pointless and avoidable suffering, and who then return to the proposed solutions of theists like St. Augustine, C. S. Lewis, John Hick, William P. Alston, Richard Swinburne, and, yes, even Alvin Plantinga, will find them generalized, detached, and unconvincing."

"I can pay John Loftus no higher compliment than to say that his new book is reminiscent of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine and The Life of Jesus Critically Examined by David Friedrich Strauss. He has done for the 21st Century what they did for the 18th and the 19th. It should be required reading for every Christian."

--------------

David Mills, author of Atheist Universe: "John W. Loftus is to atheism what Tiger Woods is to golf, or what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Loftus has provided, in this superb and entertaining volume, the crown jewel of the new atheist movement. As much as I admire and enjoy Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Loftus is, far and away, my favorite author on this riveting subject. Loftus' esteemed reputation within the freethought community is indeed richly deserved. But this book exceeded even my highest expectations."

----------------

Dr. Hector Avalos, Biblical scholar and author of The End of Biblical Studies: "I truly enjoyed this book. Why I Became an Atheist combines a dose of Augustine's Confessions with a cauldron of unremitting rationalism to yield one of the most potent antidotes to Christianity on the market today. If there is such a thing as the New Atheism, then John W. Loftus is one of the standard bearers. Loftus is a former Christian evangelical apologist who became an atheist, and he tells us why in a detail and a depth worthy of the best atheist writers today. It is a well-written, informed, and potent critique of religion and Christianity."
---------------------------

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Became-Atheist-Preacher-Christianity/dp/1591025923/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

I first read about this in Michael Heiser's book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.

Because I had not heard of this before, I inquired about it here.

If you're interested in Catholic apologetics, try the Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft.

> How could God grow in wisdom and stature?

Are you familiar with the concept of kenosis? [Philippians 2:6-7] tells us that Jesus, who was God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant. In Christian theology, this passage is taken to mean that he had the nature of God but not the "abilities" unless they were granted to him by the Father. A terrible mistake made by many Christians is that Jesus carried with him on earth omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence when he did not.

With regards to baptism, Christians should do what Christ said in [Matthew 28:16-20] and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

"Son of God" is a reference to his nature. A son is the same nature as his father. Human fathers have human sons; the divine Father has a divine Son. This is not a reference to his birth at any point.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't embodied in Christ. He is fully God human flesh, but to say that all three persons of the Godhead inhabited his body would be out of line with one most Christians believe. You can see this separation at the baptism of Christ, when the Father speaks about the Son, on whom the Holy Spirit descends.

I would recommend /u/im_just_saying's book, and possibly that you read the Athanasian Creed.

Also, those end times books aren't going to sell themselves.

I can get you all a great deal on 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988.

I don't have much in the way of online resources, but I can give heavy recommendation to purchasing the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It follows a much simpler Q&A format like the older Catechisms and, for me at least, has made for easier reading than my bigger full CCC.

Also, since you'll encounter a lot of people claiming a lot of things I recommend:

Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler
and
Triumph of the Moon

These two are more "impartial" treatments of the various groups within paganism. They provide a nice perspective on the faith path.

There are different schools of thought on this:

1. Christ went to hell to preach to the righteous of the Old Testament times and bring them to heaven, and also to declare to Satan and his demons Christ's victory over them
   
2. Christ goes to hell to preach (like in 1), but the benefits of his preaching don't just apply to the salvation of Old Testament Saints, but may even extend to the salvation of those who enter hell after Christ's resurrection (Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev's book Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective)
   
3. Christ went to hell, not just to conquer and preach (as in 1 and 2), but to suffer. This is the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, and also Protestant defenders of the "Jesus died spiritually" position (Word of Faith / neo-charismatic movement leaders such as E.W. Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin)
   
4. Christ never descended into hell – this is the position of some Protestants who think the tradition of Christ's descent into hell should be rejected because it isn't found in scripture (at least as they interpret scripture – others see clear support for the descent into hell in 1 Peter 3:19-20,4:6)

I went through almost the exact same thing. After leaving our main church, my wife and I stopped going all together. Several years later, after we moved because of jobs, we started going again. Needless to say, that didn't last long.

My wife and I both come from very strong Christian backgrounds; my wife's father was a Southern-Baptist minister for decades, and my dad went to Dallas Theological Seminary and taught church classes most of his life. So let's just say that leaving wasn't an easy thing.

However, my own search led me to realize the truth. Since my wife and I are very close, I talked with her about these things but was very careful about what I said. I'm still careful. I approach the discussions from the standpoint of "searching for answers" rather than declaring that I've already decided.

My mantra over the last few years has been "If it were possible to know the truth, and one of the possibilities was that God didn't exist, would you really want to know?" Well, my answer is yes. I don't want to be a blind-follower Christian. If God is real, then I want to know for sure!

I recommend approaching it like that. It let's your spouse see that you are truly searching for answers. The truth is all we really want, and we can't use a 3000 year-old book to do it. We need real answers, not mythology.

Be sure to talk about it a lot, and be open minded to your spouse's point of view. Let them know you still care for them deeply.

This sub-reddit has been so helpful and caring, so good job starting here. Also grab some books or find some web-sites that discus these things. Here are a few I recommend:

Sites

• http://new.exchristian.net/
  
  
• http://www.patheos.com/ (you'll find many opinions here. great site)
  
  
• https://richarddawkins.net/
  
  Books
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966/
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223
  
  Cheers
  ~Nate

(Actually, your quote is not from Romans, but from Titus 1:9.)


I don’t understand why you chose to ignore what I write then chose to lecture me, but I will write here plainly:


1.) I do trust scripture – with my life. I believe and confess it is the inerrant word of God.


2.) I do not trust, or put my salvation, in your interpretation of it.


It’s naïve to think that we clearly understand every beautiful nuance and detail that is held within the Torah. I explained that the entire six days in Genesis is described in 31 sentences and a few hundred words. All I’m asking, is not to project a total understanding of those few sentences in a simple reading of an English translation viewed through 21st century eyes. Even Solomon alluded to looking deeper into the Torah: “A word well spoken is like apples of gold in a silver dish.” (Proverbs 25:11) Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading.



Examples for you:


The origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. So where did Jewish scholars make the zero point? On Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year). Rosh Hashanah commemorates the creation of the Neshama (the soul of human life). So we start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam. We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days of creation are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. In an expansion of the Talmud (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 29:1) all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam and that the six days of Genesis are separate.


Why were the six days taken out of the calendar? Perhaps because time is described differently in those six days of Genesis (e.g. see my references to days/generations.) The world sees 15 billion years – the Torah says six days. They both may be correct. The Bible tells us what happened on each of those six days and you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.


If you are in the least interested, you may wish to read Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God both by Gerald Schroeder.


Please note: I asked politely that you not to put words in my mouth. I did not write or imply “yea, that’s what it says, but I refuse to believe that’s what it says". If you continue with this posturing, this ceases to be a civil discussion and unfortunately I will be forced to end the discussion. I’m asking you again to please be respectful.

Penal substitution isn't an idea that's present in the OT. Jewish animal sacrifices were never about God punishing an innocent animal in order to forgive the people of Israel.

To quote /u/Rrrrrrr777:

>"Forgiveness is obtained in Judaism by admitting that you've done something wrong, working to correct it, and deciding not to do it anymore. The sacrifices were an integral part of daily life, but they were an outward symbolic representation that helped to bring people closer to God by being forced to confront death head-on in the hopes that the realization would reaffirm their commitment to keeping the commandments to the best of their ability."

Also, if you're questioning PSA, I highly recommend reading Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) by our very own /u/im_just_saying. It's a very short and accessible book, and really helped me to grasp the flaws inherent in penal substitution.

]Wicca differs from mainstream notions of religion. Traditionally, it's more of a religious order with no laity, an initiatory pagan priesthood that maintains a body of knowledge and rites that is kept intact and handed down from initiate to initiate. It also differs in that it's not an orthodoxy but an orthopraxy.

Eclectic practices influenced by Wicca tend to be orthodox ("I'm a Wiccan because I believe ___") and tend to differ from one to the other as they're most often individual practices unique to the person.

Some suggestions:

Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton

Wicca: A comprehensive guide to the Old Religion in the modern world by Vivienne Crowley

Modern Wicca: A History From Gerald Gardner to the Present by Michael Howard

Witching Culture, Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America, by Sabina Magliocco

Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler (the late NPR journalist)

This book is like an unofficial follow-up to Adler's DDTM:

Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-Pagans in the United States, by Helen A. Berger

Books from the mid-20th century:

Witchcraft Today by Gerald Gardner

The Meaning of Witchcraft by Gerald Gardner

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

I recommend these books for a deeper study:

Stories from Ancient Canaan

The Early History of God

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism

The Evolution of God

Here's the story written for any educated layperson:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453706897&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

Here's the story for someone with a good familiarity with Biblical studies:
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer/dp/0674504976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453706971&sr=8-1&keywords=the+invention+of+god

AFAIK there is no dinosaur focused book that has been written to specifically counter creationist claims - it would be a worth endeavor. I would point to the Counter-Creationism Handbook. It's pretty thoroughly dismantles most creationist claims - including those related to paleontology.

Just read the 1 star reviews on Amazon, some of them review the arguments quite throughly:

https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/product-reviews/0802863833/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

What I get from them is that it is repleat with arguments from ignorance. Basically present an unanswered question in physics and say we don't know the answer therefore god did it. This line of reasoning is never valid.

That's certainly an opinion people have, but why don't you investigate the Church's position and then decide what you believe? I challenge you to see what the Church has to offer. This way you're at least addressing fully thought-out ideas instead of what lots of people think the Church teaches. Here are some resources. :)

Those aren't the Theology of the Body, rather summary explanations. The first link would indeed be the most updated of a very popular yet still scholarly explanation.

This, too my knowledge, is the most recent publication of the original TOB talks in book form:

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-Created-Them/dp/0819874213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537279865&sr=8-1&keywords=man+and+woman+he+created+them&dpID=21R3P665NSL&preST=_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Maybe you should read his book Undeniable.

https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223

Paging /u/Im_just_saying. We have another case of disagreement with Penal Substitutionary Atonement!

He wrote a book on this sort of thing.

/u/im_just_saying has written a book about it, and he often offers a free PDF of it to people. I've read it myself, and it was the first time the Trinity ever made sense to me.

Here's an Amazon link.

But to summarize: God the Father is God's invisible essence. We could not experience God at all if he did not show himself to us, because we are created and he is uncreated. He transcends time and matter, and all of our experience takes place within time and matter. So: God is entirely inscrutable to humanity, except when and insofar as he reveals himself to us.

That Revelation is God the Son. Every one of God's actions that we see, every word God speaks, is the "begetting" of the Son. We believe that the Son became embodied as a human in Jesus, but that "all things that were made were made through [the Son]". In other words, the Son was present for the first act of Creation. And in a sense, the act of Creation is the Son. But because God is eternal (outside of time), the Son did not come into being at the time of Creation. He is eternally begotten, without beginning or end.

The Holy Spirit is harder to articulate, but we believe the Spirit to be the "energy" by and in which the Father begets the Son. All things that the Father does through the Son, he does by the Holy Spirit. We believe that God "poured out [his] Spirit on all flesh" on the Day of Pentecost, after Jesus ascended to Heaven. So now, the same Spirit by which the Father begets the Son is present in humanity.

We call these three "Persons", because the Greek word personæ was used to indicate the relational and conscious nature of the Three. But I think that term is actually misleading in English, where a "person" is a separate being, and can suggest that the Persons of the Trinity are separate beings (and hence, separate deities, which would be polytheism).

I prefer the term "relational realities", because it is closer to the meaning of the Greek personæ than the English "persons", expressing the idea that God is a relational being, eternally in relationship to and within God's self, without suggesting that the Trinity is three separate beings.

The Father is in relationship to the Son and the Spirit, the Son to the Spirit and the Father, and the Spirit to the Father and Son. This is similar to how humans are in relationship to ourselves (think about what happens when you are in thought: "someone" is doing the talking, and "someone else" is doing the listening). But with an important difference: God is perfectly in relationship to God's self. Human beings are not. We are created to be perfect in relationship not within ourselves, but to others: to other humans of course, but chiefly to God. Because of sin, we are not perfect in relationship to anyone—God, others, or ourselves. And this is one reason why the Trinity, the only instance of relational perfection, is a mystery to us.

Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not really related, so I don't think you'll find a book with both, but, to answer your question:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins is a great book on evolution.


EDIT: You wated the Kindle version KINDLE VERSION

Check out The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible by Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Great book.

https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Recovering-Supernatural-Worldview/dp/1577995562

My vote goes to Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why?

• Short book, only about 200 pages
  
• Quick pithy answers to questions, with references to the full Catechism for further info, if desired
  
• If you don't want to buy the print book, it's online in one page here; and in other languages too
  
  ----
  
  Sample Q & A from the book:
  
  >102. How did God prepare the world for the mystery of Christ?
  
  >522-524 [the CCC reference for further diving]
  
  >God prepared for the coming of his Son over the centuries. He awakened in the hearts of the pagans a dim expectation of this coming and he prepared for it specifically through the Old Testament, culminating with John the Baptist who was the last and greatest of the prophets. We relive this long period of expectancy in the annual liturgical celebration of the season of Advent.

I use to be big into this stuff and it's just an empty well. Paul thought Jesus would return in his lifetime and at every point throughout history. One day I realized that people never seem to get prophesy correct and Jesus was clear that even he didn't know the time it would happen. And likely our entire idea of the "end times" is just plain incorrect.

Here's a book on the 88 reasons the rapture will occur in 1988. I was in high school and I don't recall it ever happening. Life is far better once you give up the end times stuff and recognize that no one knows. For all we know Jesus was talking about the end of the times billions of years from now. Once you get out of it you can look back and see how silly it all really is.

Definitely read the Catechism.You should also check out the Compendium of the Catechism. It is a shorter, easier to read synopsis that explains much of the CCC.

Read The Unseen Realm, by Dr. Michael Heiser.

Peter Leithart's recent book Delivered from the Elements of the World is all about this, and in his reading it primarily refers to the socio-cultural structures of a world in flesh which it designs in an attempt to deal with the limits of flesh. He said a lot more than I could summarize to make this case, so I'll just link to the book.

Also, I think there is a decent chance that Paul could be talking about the fallen heavenly beings which ruled over the nations after Babel, a la Michael Heiser's The Unseen Realm (link).

I suggest you buy a copy of the the Catechism of the catholic church orrrrr a copy of the Youcat. There basically Q&A style books of the official,Church stances and answers with their reasonings. (the compendium is the q&a the regular edition is the more in depth book)

But these books will answer Any catholic question you'll likely have.

http://www.amazon.com/Compendium-Catechism-Catholic-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/1574557203/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1345077547&sr=8-5&keywords=catechism+of+the+catholic+church

http://www.amazon.com/Youcat-Cardinal-Christoph-Schonborn-editor/dp/1586175165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345077618&sr=8-1&keywords=Youcat

It can be a bit daunting due to its length, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a text describing the beliefs which the Church officially considers doctrinal. There's the regular Catechism text, but also a Compendium and a Catechism for Adults if the regular Catechism is too long or too dense of a read right now. The parish you contacted might have a copy of the Catechism you can borrow/keep if you ask.

Other good "starter" books on Catholicism include:

• Rediscover Catholicism - Matthew Kelly
  
• Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith - Robert Barron
  
• The Lamb's Supper - Scott Hahn
  
• Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist - Brant Pitre
  
• The Creed - Scott Hahn
  
• Theology for Beginners - Frank Sheed
  
• A Biblical Walk Through the Mass - Edward Sri
  
• Waking Up Catholic - Chad Torgerson
  
  Also be aware that the Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Protestant one, so also see if you can get ahold of one. Catholic Bible translations include the New American Bible, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (also the NRSV-CE), the New Jerusalem Bible (less common here in America), and the traditional Douay-Rheims translation--the Douay Rheims is to Catholicism as the King James Version is to Protestant Christianity.

First place I would send anyone is Sacredtexts.com since it's free and has all the old books there. Apart from that it depends on what branch of paganism you want to go into.

It's weird because England has this huge underground magical movement going on that hardly anyone really knows about. From pagan/wiccan groups to druids to golden dawn goetic magical schools to imported voodoo/shaman type practices to native cunning men and wise woman from Cornwall. It's fascinating which is why I got into it in the first place.

If you want a good background about all of paganism though you could do worse than The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft by Ronald Hutton. He's a professor who has specialized in paganism and witchcraft in England.

> Is this really offensive? If it is, please explain it to me. It's not enough to tell me it is, I've got to know why.

For some it will be, for others not so much.

If you asked me if you could approach paganism, but dropping the "supernatural" stuff from it, I'd say "Hell yeah!" because I do just that. I don't really have much use for divination or crystals or anything like that, so I just don't use them in my practice. I can see why some would use it and I understand how some use them practically, but I just don't feel the need for it.

For me, Paganism is really about the Natural world. The Earth is my Mother (My goddess, if you might like to say so), and the Sun is my Father (My god, if you will). I know a lot of other pagans do this do, but not all. Some pagans use pantheons for deity, but deity is not a necessity in paganism.

I still like ritual, though I don't do much pagan ritual in my personal practice, because the symbols used in it represent natural forces and things going on in the world. A "supernatural non-believer" could find use and spiritual meaning in ritual (as well as gods and crystals and magic), because to me (and surely others out there) they're just symbols, but symbols have a lot of personal power. They can help you change your mindset, help you understand things better.

Some will find calling things "supernatural" offensive, because some pagans do believe "supernatural" things exist, and don't view them as "supernatural." This is perfectly okay, to me, it's just not my way of approaching things.

TL;DR It will vary from person to person, and can be a sensitive topic for some. Not for all, though.

As for books without too much of a supernatural inclination about Paganism, I'd try out Ronald Hutton. His Triumph of the Moon is more about the history and roots of paganism, but he's very detailed and descriptive, as well as academic.

Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon is of the same vein as Triumph of the Moon. Both are pretty heavy and tome-like, but are filled with invaluable information.

If you're looking into Wicca theology, I found Bryan Lankford's Wicca Demystified to be a great in depth explanation, especially for an "outsider." A lot of the "beginners" books on Wicca you'll find are heavy on ritual and magic, and seeing how you don't have much fondness for it, I think Lankford's book might be better suited for you.

And I haven't read it, but Dana Eiler's Practical Pagan might be of interest to you. It seems to have the less "magicy-supernatural" and more of a mundane, practical approach to paganism. Not sure about it, though. You might find some good info in the amazon's review section of the book.

I feel like there's another book or two that I've read that taps into what you're looking for, but I just can't think of it. There are some cool anthologies full of essays of paganism in the real world, which I find are invaluable for their information, and not so heavy on the "supernatural side," like Pagan Visions for a Sustainable Future and Celebrating the Pagan Soul.

PS

>I'm use to kinda being primed to attack fundamentalism in Christianity and I've got little good to say about Islam at all.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of Christianity and Islam in general. Interfaith can be a very important. You don't have to agree with what they believe, but personally I know a few Muslims who are very kind and generous, and if they give credit to their religion for their kindness and generosity, I wouldn't say there's nothing good to say about Islam. But that's neither here nor there.

Okay this is something I wrote that explains some of the origins of Wicca and British paganism in general that you might find interesting.

The only 'beginners' book that I would recommend is Where to Park your Broomstick by Lauren Mannoy. This is actually an excellent book written in a very accessible style.

After that, then you should try Doreen Valiente's stuff. She's the most important figure in Wicca and modern witchcraft, as she wrote much of its material and despite wanting to find ancient sources, was completely honest about what she did and didn't find. I'd start with Witchcraft for Tomorrow which is a massively interesting book even if you're not Wiccan.

If you want something that's really in depth about Wicca and what it is and where it came from, the only thing worth looking at - and something that's utterly essential is Professor Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon. This is a very academic book, however, so maybe you can leave it for a while. If you want to take Wicca seriously though, it's absolutely essential. There are some people who claim to be Wiccans who don't like it and can't accept what it says, but I'd stay away from them, as they tend to prefer the fantasy of it being an ancient religion rather than being willing to be open minded about where it really came from and what it is.

Avoid Silver Ravenwolf's books completely. They're rubbish and contain some very bad advice, especially for young people. Despite what she might claim, she's not highly regarded by actual Wiccans at all.

Other advice - well... don't believe anyone who promises you anything or says they can sort out problems for you using Wicca or Witchcraft. If they claim to be part of a group of a High Priest or Priestess or anything like that, then ask what their lineage is or for proof of this and to talk to other people who can back it up. If they're genuine, they won't mind in the slightest. If they're a bullshitter, they'll take offence, but that's when you walk away. If they know who Doreen Valiente and Ron Hutton are and can get into a conversation with you about their books, they've probably got a clue. If they dismiss them or don't know who they are, then they probably don't.

The other thing to say is that even though it's secretive and private, there's a massive difference between privacy and secrecy. You can and should tell someone else whereabouts roughly you're going, if you're going to meet up with groups, or people.

In the main, Wiccans and pagans are pretty nerdy, pretty friendly, but occasionally somewhat damaged, which can lead to interpersonal issues within groups that aren't much fun to deal with. The Wiccan and pagan scene can be a playground for attention seeking folk with ego issues and the problems relating to that are far more likely to cause difficulties than the chances of running into any dangerous animal-sacrificing sex-cult that'll put your soul and life in danger.

So - do a lot of reading, and make sure you establish some boundaries of your own before getting involved with anything or anyone else.

In answer to your specific question, rather than muddle through an economic analysis of collectivization and the specific cultural values unique to the Kulaks in Urkaine, I'm going to highly recommend Harvest of Sorrow, which I believe will more provide you with satisfying data.

TL;DR version of the book: There was a time when there was an actual debate over whether Stalin was an economic idiot or a mass murderer, but that's no longer the case. He might have been an idiot, but it took a great deal of intentionality to inflict this kind of terror on a populace that Stalin felt stood in the way of his great Soviet state.

Edit: I accidentally a word

Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God" is good both because it summarizes the scholarship on the topic and makes it interesting for the reader. It is also a lot newer than Karen Amstrong's book, which is important since a lot has happened in the scholarship of these religions in the past 20 years.

Another excellent book is The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins (former director of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institute of Health).

Upvoted, and I wanted to add that Francis is now the director of the NIH. There are many kinds of Christians, and some of them definitely believe that science is good and we are supposed to use our rationality to investigate the natural world.

He also wrote this book which might give some insight to anyone interested in how he views the relationship between faith and science. I don't agree with him on every particular, but I do think that theists of his stripe are a far cry from the fundamentalists and the God-hates-fags wackos.

Hey OP if you are interested in reading a well put together presentation you could do worse than looking at Evidence that demands a Verdict.

The author was a legal student who set out to disprove the resurrection, but ended up converting because of what he found. It has multiple sources and while it has a Christian bias, it collects nearly every argument you will hear to support Christian ideas in a cogent readable way.

Here's a good start: [I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist](
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615).

I too was raised Lutheran, and I too am a man of science, logic, fact. I've been convinced by the evidence and do not struggle with trust in God.

There is hard evidence out there, ie: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"

And in the philosophic and scientific origins cases in the first book I linked. What also compels me is the case against biogenesis. I have never been able to accept the agnostic argument for how life arises from non-life. Most accept it on the basis of materialism, but materialism is an unproved assertion. And knowing something about chemistry and the function of even the simplest cells, there's no way life can come from the primordial soup they want to imagine it came from.

I also recommend Classic Christianity to escape many of the doctrinal errors you, like me, were likely raised in via Lutheranism (ie: in and out of fellowship via sin, etc.).

Anyway, good luck with your quest for truth. You'll find answers.

/u/Mysterium-fidei - in case you weren't sure what this meant, "Theology of the Body" is a series of reflections made by Pope John Paul II and they are all available to read in their entirety online right now.
Links here:
From EWTN - https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Same links from USCCB but with a different resource for an introduction:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/catholic-teaching/theology-of-the-body.cfm


You can just jump right in to reading the actual sermons (there are 129 of them) or you could go for a summarizing type book. I made my suggestion of the Sri book, although that is a precursor to TOB.

Here is a link to TOB translated into book form, instead of the individual sermons (I haven't read this one):
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-Created-Them/dp/0819874213

You can see in the links below the "Frequently Bought Together" section has a Beginners Guide and a Commentary Book that are often bought to help those who may need more than just the original text.

I highly recommend Christ the Conqueror of Hell. It is written by an Archbishop but is really a study and exegesis of the texts that talk about the descent into Hades. The author looks at the NT, apochryphal literature, early Christian poetry, Eastern and Western fathers from the 2nd century to the 8th. He also looks at hymns and liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church.

He only gets into the theology in the Epilogue, but the rest of the book does not discuss theology.

It makes perfect sense. You might also be interested in this book as it does a wonderful job of explaining the Orthodox perception of Hell. I don't know how accurate this is but to me Orthodoxy always felt like the middle ground between Protestantism and Catholicism (if that makes any sense). I especially find the social and "mystical" (for lack of a better word) views of Quakers, Mennonites, and various other Anabaptist traditions very similar to the Orthodox view. Spiritually speaking, I think that my views could very easily fall under the Mennonite category.

Actually, it's possible the universe WAS created in 6 days.

The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder (PhD in Nuclear Physics from MIT) shows how the language in Genesis chapter 1 does not contradict the scientific view of the history of the universe.

From Wiki:

> Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.[7]
Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the fine-tuned universe arguments of Gerald Schroeder convinced him to become a deist.

I don't know what kind of spare money you have, but I highly recommend you read Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) from /u/im_just_saying. He does a really good job of talking about where the idea of PSA came from, and what the predominant theory of atonement was in early Christianity. For a brief overview of it read about the Christus Victor wiki

Sorry I guess I should have been more clear, it does show up if you go to this link, but it says that it is not in stock, I don't buy things if they are not in stock because who knows if they will ever get more stock in.

If you're interested, one of the redditors here wrote a book on the Trinity that I think could be really useful in Muslim/Christian dialog on monotheism. I don't expect it to cause Muslims to do cartwheels or anything, but it might make us look a bit less like total polytheists.

Go read The Holy Trinity.

Then, go read The Trinity Untangled.

Then, go read On the Incarnation and The Trinity. The can also be found on CCEL fairly easily, and for free.

The best information comes from personal experience. That said, there is significantly more useful information in printed books than on the internet: Try books by Marian Green, Ronald Hutton, and others (disregard pretty much anything published by Llewellyn unless it was written by Scott Cunningham [who despite "fluffy bunny" leanings knows his stuff, herbally] or another author you know to trust).

You might also want to hang around the magical blogosphere at places like Runesoup, Confessions of a Pagan Soccer Mom, Witch of Forest Grove, etc. The Lucky Mojo Curio Co. site is tacky as all hell (deliberately so) but an incredible resource, just bear in mind that Cat Yronwode (though very well-informed) is not the end-all be-all to conjure.

[Edited for Lucky Mojo typo and to add links]

i was thinking too; you might want to read “the triumph of the moon.” which is a history of modern paganism. it’s a very good way to understand the origins of wicca, versus ancient earth based religions. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0192854496/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0192854496

my father and grandfather were freemasons and after i was initiated into a wiccan tradition that originated in the UK, i grasped how much Gardner had been influenced by masonry in his creation of original wiccan liturgy. of course, Gardner said he was divinely inspired, but all prophets say that and then share what they already know. (maybe Akhenaten was different? idk) my first trad was a mishmash of Alexandrian wicca, irish and british lore and “fairy folk tradition” that didnt make more experience in that “grove” any less significant or authentic. i learned a hell of a lot and my HPS and HP were very skilled with group energy work and drawing in the goddess energy. unfortunately, there was also a strong aspect of “this is an ancient lineage that you need to be 100% obedient to” that ultimately drove me away. of course it wasnt! i could find in books the parts that the ritual liturgy was pieced together from! and the whole “the goddess speaks through me so you have to do whatever i say” is just plain bullshit and why i reject organized religion anyway.

anyway, then i discovered reclaiming and the faeri tradition. even though starhawk calls her trad wiccan, and there are aspects of TBW in her original liturgy in “the spiral dance,” the HEART of reclaiming is NOT TBW or “wiccan.” i strongly recommend, if you havent read “spiral dance” “truth or dare” “dreaming the dark” “the earth path” etc, please do. and thorn coyle’s book, “evolutionary witchcraft” too.

you can also find info on reclaiming’s, starhawk and thorn coyle’s websites. even though there is a very strong component of social activism in both these trads, dont let that deter you... activist or not, the non-dogmatic, non-wiccan approach to neo-paganism and witchcraft is invaluable.

I know its unlikely you will read it, but https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Sorrow-Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807 If you would ever like to look outside the cave you seem to have got yourself stuck in and see the light; reading this book would be a good start.

Oh and you can fuck right off with that fascist labeling shit. My grandparents on my mother's and father's side fought fascists in Europe, and I am half Slavic, Nazi's weren't very big fans of Slavs especially Slavs with a Jewish background.

You linked a historian who is standing in opposition to the rest of his field. Academia operates by consensus.

But okay, have some sources:

Robert Conquest: The Harvest Of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine

Hadzewycz, Roma; Zarycky, George B.; Kolomayets, Martha: The Great Famine in Ukraine: The Unknown Holocaust.

James E. Mace: Soviet Man-Made Famine in Ukraine

There are sources in Ukrainian and Russian as well. Tauger is completely on his own here.

Have you read The Evolution of God by Robert Wright? It resolves many of the inconsistencies and oddities of the Bible/Torah as actually textual evidence for the evolution of the Abrahamic God from a polytheistic pantheon. Might clarify your thinking here.

Here is a good read on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422654371&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

>I am mad at myself for not being this analytic about this earlier in my life

I had this exact feeling.

So one thing to realize is that this process takes time I mean for FSM sake u lived a lot with this Idea.keep reading whatever you do keep reading.

some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:

• parables of Jesus
  
• the history of hell
  
• history before ur religion.
  
• the Christ myth theory (However I do believe he existed but it lowered my certainty) and how exodus never happened look for the exodus myth
  
• Commonsense atheism and proving the negative
  
• talk origin and talk design are also very good sources.
  
• read some books on cognitive sciences and psychology of religion , search for recommended atheism books. (understand what cognitive bias is)
  
• this is the phone line u're looking for
  
• read an introductory account on atheism this is one of the best books on atheism
  
• find a way to express u're doubts or else u'll go crazy (at least if u're anything like me) ,blog about it or write about it , talk to s1, ask others questions.
  
• listen to debates about religions.
  
• think about the fact that u finally could emancipate urself from this.
  
• learn a little more about other religions it helps A LOT .
  
• read books by Xbelievers like John Luftus or Dan barker
  
• read more I mean Way more on cosmology and physics. just search for top books on Cosmology
  
• read comparative books like Karen Armstrong books and read the evolution of god
  
• read Religion Explained
  
  

  keep fear away and ...good luck !

It’s Thursday (in the states), plan a hike to look at nature for Sunday morning. Go look at some rocks and plants, and just let it sink in.
Check this book out, it’s great!

Also available in book (and e-book I got it as an ebook a while back, but apparently it's not available anymore) from from the same author:

http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301585749&sr=8-1

If you like to have something to page through on a flight/coffee shop/grandma's house.

You've just seen the Gish Gallop!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

It is a sign of laziness. It usually results from copying and pasting/paraphrasing.

I own this book (http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267) and it makes refuting nonsense easy. None of the arguments made are new or original so referencing this book is always helpful; they will all be in there.

I am not a biologist.

The Counter-Creationism Handbook might be something like what you're looking for, though it does branch into non-evolutionary topics. It is a compilation of questions/arguments from talk.origins (usenet) that are discussed for a paragraph or two with lots of sources cited. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Really recommend this one.

What Evolution Is was a good introduction to evolution. I've read several, and I feel that this was the best. He also talks in passing about what evolution is not. Standard kind of non-fiction book.

Evolution is supposedly the reference textbook of atheists. There is a newer edition out, or you can pick up this one for about $15 (USD).

Here

I have a copy of this but haven't read it. We used this in a religion class. It's really just an overview but it may be a good jumping off point (lots of references to chase). There may be a more readable ancient near east book. This to cover zoroaster.

You can get the original Gilgamesh translation or Enuma Elish free from Gutenberg. There have probably been half a dozen books written on each one so just look those up.

I think that, even if you have books and a ton of references in hand, it's not going to settle the matter for very many theists. Most people's belief doesn't come from thoroughly convincing evidence. That god exists is, to them, an absolute. But, you know, it's fun stuff to read about.

I was brought up in an evangelical environment, and I had the same question for many years: What's the relation between astrology and Christianity? Do they exclude each other?

I found the answer in this book: "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. It really set my mind free - even though it is more about Christianity than astrology.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986

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

God is certainly way more complex than humans make him out to be. But if there is a personal creator which actually wishes to communicate with us can you blame him for putting it in terms we could actually understand? I don't think Paul was dumb by any means but nuclear fusion would be a bit above any 1st century Roman citizen. Besides, the purposes are different.

The purposes of science is to tell us how this natural world ticks.
The purpose of Christian scripture is to tell us about an invisible God and his plan which works through this natural world as well as the intangible elements of our existence.

I would like to share the work of a Christian scientist with you, who, like you sees the beauty in the natural world, with similar awe as yours. "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.

Francis Collins has a pretty decent book called The Language of God, though he mostly reiterates CS Lewis.

But it's an interesting read as he was the head of the Human Genome Project, and made an appeal to fundies to stop tying Christianity to the anchor of Creationism.

check out this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins and his book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/0743286391

I haven't read it myself, but I have always wanted to.

Regarding your second question, some would argue (rightly, I believe) that a literal interpretation requires analyzing the text as it would have been understood for its contemporary audience. This requires translating culture along with the obvious language translation. The ancient cultures (not just Jews, but Akkadians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.) were much more concerned with existence/creation from a functional perspective (something exists because it has purpose), in contrast to modern thoughts that they deal with the material nature.

I'm presently reading The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton, and would definitely recommend getting your hands on it if this topic interests you. While you can take this with a grain of salt, Walton doesn't appear be using an escapist argument to avoid disagreement between other "literal" (e.g. 6,000 year old earth) interpretations of Genesis and modern science. He makes a compelling case for his form of literal interpretation, and the Christian/genome-scientist Francis Collins has come out in support of it.

I am glad that this was useful in some way.

While I cannot speak on behalf of those who oppose evolution, I was raised attending a private Christian school that taught me (in my science books) why they believed evolution was a scientifically unsound theory. They attacked all science that objected to a young earth. I was taught that isometric dating produces inconsistent results (such as producing dates thousands of years off on different ends of a fossil). They attacked the astronomy of the big bang expansion as speculative and inconclusive (as the big bang is still hardly agreed upon today). They basically take all of the evidence as circumstantial and inconclusive. They search for evidence to establish an alternative scientific narrative (things that corroborate a literal interpretation of the Bible).

If you are interested in understanding a fundamentalist's rationalizations, the fundamentalist "bible" of apologetics is probably New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. As far as I know, it contains every possible justification for a fundamentalist/literlaist interpretation of the Bible.

P.S. For those of you who are now worried about my scientific education, fear not. This was my Jr. High experience. I went on to public High School where I was taught the opposite.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Hundred of authors spanning hundred of years, yes. The bible could have been written and then re-written to collaborate and re-infirm what it says.

It could have been edited. More to the point. It was edited. And you could NEVER know for sure the truth of it. That is why there is multiple bibles, saying different places, with different times for the same described event.

I read this just recently. It had some really good information in it. With sources to back up key points. And I looked. But. There were holes and points missed and avoided in arguments about times and facts. That there are other books and scriptures that have not been included in the bible because it was inconvienent for the Church at the time. These holes and peaces of information that are missing tell the reader to "Go on faith".

How do you have faith in something when the book that gives direction, has so many contradictions.

Here bake this cake.

3 eggs
1 1/4 cups of water

1 box of cake mix (any kind)

1/3 cup of cooking oil


Procedure:

1 Take your mixing bowl, open the box of cake mix and pour it in the mixing bowl.

2 Take the three eggs, crack them and put them in the mixing bowl.

2 Feed one egg to the dog. And use the other two for breakfast.

3 Take 1 1/4 cups of water and put them in the mixing bowl.

3 Take the 1 1/4 cups of water and drink it.

4 Take the 1/3 cups of cooking oil and put them in the mixing bowl also.

5 Mix with mixer (or by hand)

5 Don't mix anything.

6 Pour the mix in the 13'' by 9'' pan, after greased.

7 Put the 13''by 9'' pan in the oven on 350 for 25 - 30.

8 After baked let it cool off for at LEAST 10 MIN.

8 Bake for another 15 minuets.

9 After it cools down you may decorate with any cake decorations.

• Your cake will be different from my cake. The directions are contradictory with options that aren't clear.
  
  Edit: I see you read that book too! I'll hammer threw it a find some points!

Oh man. Where do I begin?

It started with Edward Feser. Then Aquinas.

I recently compiled my 'short list' of books that were foundational for a Master's:

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764807188/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925995X/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Then go here:

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Vol-Church-Reformation/dp/006185588X

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061855898/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T5D86TV1MTCSQAYZ4GHR

G.K. Chesterton is always a good supplement (Heretics and Orthodoxy):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ALKPW4S/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Bible Study:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0385247672/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477868333&sr=1-1&keywords=raymond+brown

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585169420/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809147807/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

(Jewish perspective on NT): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297709/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

After you've gotten through these (or maybe interspersed), get into de Chardin -- but be careful, because he toes the line into heresy with the noosphere stuff.

Then, start reading the theoretical physicist priests in our faith, Stanley Jaki, for example.

And this. This.

Finally, try to muddle through Spitzer. These guys have more smarts in their little finger than I will ever have.

Edit: I refreshed the thread and saw that you've already found Feser. Excellent. Are you familiar with John C. Wright as well? Sci-fi-writer-former-atheist-now-traditionalist-Catholic.

I'm interested in any science + metaphysics books you've come across too. . .

Here is a theological primer:

https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conqueror-Hell-Orthodox-Perspective/dp/0881410616

Depending on what your idea of "Conservative" means, you might like Christ the Conqueror of Hell, which is written by an Orthodox Archbishop.

There's also the faq (on this subreddit and /u/cephas_rock's here); it doesn't seem like it would be a problem for "Conservative" (again, depending on definition) Christians. The subreddit's faq lists a number of other books.

Your link to Alfeyev's book is bad so I'll put it here.

Bill Nye has a good book. He read the audio book too.

Undeniable

I respect your open mindedness and your beliefs. I once believed as you do, before I stopped believing at all. When I did believe I read a wonderful book that compared the creation of the universe, earth, life, etc, to the 6 days of creation in Genesis. I hope, if you read it, that you find it as enjoyable and enlightening that I did at that the time. The name of the book is "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdon".

I also want to add, that my changing of beliefs were in no way impacted by this book. If anything it probably forestalled my inevitable conversion to atheism for quite some time by giving me a way to reconcile my two conflicting sets of beliefs.

Bruh a Bishop from the Anglican Church of NA wrote a great book on this.

https://www.amazon.com/Salvation-How-We-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873

Also just to call him. /u/im_just_saying

> Even in the Old Testament individual sins needed atonement and covering.

Yet the place for dealing with that was wholly communal.

> Jesus' blood covers our sins on an individual level

I've just read this book which notes, when we talk of Jesus's sacrifice, he is referred to as our Mercy Seat – again, the place of communal appeal to God for forgiveness of the nation's sin(s). No doubt those sins are committed by individuals, but God relates his forgiveness to the whole.

I don't doubt we are on some level saved individually, though. Rather, is our experience as one who is already "washed in the blood" one that approximates a "personal relationship with Jesus"?

This book by redditor /u/im_just_saying is probably the most helpful introduction to the Trinity in layman's terms. He might even be willing to answer your questions himself!

I'll just add that no monotheistic argument is completely satisfying, whether you're a Christian, Unitarian, Jew, Muslim, whatever. Trinitarianism tries to work out some of the inherent paradoxes with the whole concept, but no formula is perfect because God is by nature outside of our understanding (if he could fit in our head, he wouldn't be God). The most significant paradox Trinitarianism attempts to resolve is the interaction between an infinite God and finite creation. Happy to go into this more if you're interested, but the book and the link from /u/mistiklest will probably be more helpful.

Can we start a book group and read through 88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988?

John Loftus used to be a Christian apologist.

I hope you and your fiancé are able to get out of there soon.

I remember being in my Grandpa's house with a pile of books strewn across their home office entitled, "'88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988". The person who wrote the book sent out copies to churches to distribute to their congregations. My Grandpa was a pastor at the time, so I'm assuming these copies were left over from that distribution.

It was the early 90s by this time.

There will always be people predicting the world's end, and they will always look foolish when the appointed date comes and goes.

I highly recommend Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Catholic Apologetics for doubts about God's existence and such (or even the truth of Christianity). Another great book to meet atheist arguments is in William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable Faith. Craig isn't Catholic, but he does a great job tackling complex arguments. (Also, he does say some nonsense against the doctrine of Divine Simplicity and there may be other problems, but having read the work its largely free from errors of the faith.)

For tackling Protestant questions, I highly recommend Catholic Answers', The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, which defends major doctrines and provides Scripture and Tradition all over its pages. I also recommend my website for these sorts of questions as well. Cough cough.

Well, I didn't tell you the first half of my story, but I was the real deal. I was full-on god squad. Every moment of my spare time was doing godly stuff or beating myself up because I wasn't doing enough godly stuff. I went to church Sunday (all day), Wednesday evening, Friday night, and had a few meetings every week. I went to the conferences out of country. I even taught myself some biblical Greek. I still know what κοινωνία means, and how ἀγάπη is different from φίλος, or how true repentance must be μετάνοια not merely contrition or wallowing in self-pity. I studied great preachers like Reidhead, Tozer, Wesley, Spurgeon and others.

I didn't think I was called to full time ministry; I was called to be successful in business and make money to further the kingdom of God. I tithed – for real. I have tax receipts to prove it. Serving God was going to be my life's work. I was a lay preacher. I made detailed notes and delivered inspiring sermons. I listened carefully and took notes when others spoke, to make sure I rightly divided the word of truth.

I swore "though my mother and father forsake you, God, I will never forsake you". I wrote promises like that in the back pages of my bibles (of course I had many). Here's one I wrote on Saturday November 26, 2005 at 10pm while on a retreat:
>More than anything else

>I want to be found in the presence of God.

>Is there anything else that really matters?

>Or anything else I truly need to ask for?

>Psalm 27:4.

Obviously it was unthinkable that I could ever deny the existence of God; I would have rather died than deny him. I know exactly what you mean when you say you could never deny "His" existence, I know what that feels like. After all I experienced I knew God. If I told you my "testimony" up until before my deconversion you'd be all "yes and amen, there's a man on fire for God", just like other Christians did. My favorite chapter was Isaiah 6, the vision of the exalted God, and I longed to see Him as Isaiah did.

I was devoted to God – possibly even more than you are, but I don't presume to know that. I knew God. Until I didn't.

My experiences were just as real as yours, and I have evidence for my experiences. You don't get to deny them. You don't get to gaslight me to make uncomfortable information go away. Evidence continues to exist even if ignored.

Coming to terms with reality means accepting that someone who was just as honestly and sincerely seeking God as yourself can realize God doesn't exist. That is my story. And it's not just my story you should face. Have a look at the devout pastors who no longer believe after once seeking God just as sincerely you do now.

I'm disappointed that was all you had for me as a response. After all, surely you prayed about how to lead the wayward /u/Zomunieo back to Christ? Does this mean that God Himself had no better answer than to deny the reality of my past experiences of God? You'd think if he were real, he would try, I don't know, admonishing me that those experiences were real and I'm now mistaken, rather than denigrating all of my past connections to him as less real than yours.

Kreeft's Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

Add these to your reading list:

• Anything by John Warwick Montgomery
  
• JP Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker, 1987)
  
• Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Baker, 1988)
  
• Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Volume 1 (Here's Life, 1992) Volume 2 (Thomas Nelson, 1992); these have apparently been revised and expanded into a single volume (Thomas Nelson, 1999).
  
• Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)
  
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (self-published, 1264); note this is in four volumes
  
• Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius, 1994)
  
  Specifically on morality:
  
  
• Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism (Ignatius, 1999)
  
• Anything by Jay Budziszewski or Janet Smith
  
  There also exist multimedia available online related to the above that you can hunt down for yourself.
  
  (As a Catholic naturally I disagree with whatever goes against Catholic teaching in the above works; nevertheless there is much that is good in all of these. Furthermore even though some items are specifically Catholic, much in them would be useful to you.)

Psalm 82: God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

1st word God is YHVH second word God is elohim (which is plural)

Dr Michael Heiser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS22MPVFngs
Also his book titled "Unseen Realm" https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Recovering-Supernatural-Worldview/dp/1577995562

Moon Knight. I like System of a Down, Tool, and Primus
And my item!

1- Bible: Any Bible with the word "Catholic" on the front (and without words like "Story", "Picture", "For Little Ones", etc) will suit your purposes. Your best bet is either the NRSV-CE or the New American Bible. Beyond that, it's completely up to you - different editions have different features. Just go to a Catholic bookstore and see which one you like best. This blog has some information on the different editions.

For the NRSV-CE, take a look at the Ignatius Bible

For New American, take a look at a St Joseph edition. I've also heard a recommendation for the Fireside editions.

Either one of those might fit the bill for "quintessential"

2 - For learning the prayers of the Mass, get a St Joseph Sunday Missal. Any edition will have the basic prayers. If you get the inexpensive paperback "2015" book, it will have the prayers of the Mass, but the Bible readings won't pick up until the new Church year starts in late November.

For learning more about the whys and wherefores of the Mass, the Catechism has a good start on this information. You might also like to check out Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper

3- printed Catechism - Get this one. If it looks intimidating, get one of its little sisters, the Compendium or even the YouCat

4 - Philosophy - The Catechism itself will have references. I like Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed

Hope this is helpful! Welcome aboard!

Why I Became and Atheist by John Loftus Written by a former evangelical preacher. I see someone already suggested it, but I'm putting it forth again :)

This is one of the most powerful sermons I have ever heard. Francis Chan, though I wouldn't die on his hill, really has a gift for stirring up God's people to love and good works. When I was a budding Christian, his sermons helped me pull my head out of my butt (spiritually speaking). I came straight out of agnosticism and basically despised the church. [Note] the actual sermon starts at 4:20ish. They both reference books in the sermon, in a joking way. The first guy wrote a book called Big God, and Francis wrote Crazy Love. The jokes might go right over your head without that context.

Also, Paul Washer is pretty awesome.

Dr. Michael S. Heiser is also on the top of my list. He's an old testament scholar who focusses on the supernatural aspect of scripture. He's got books: the Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon are a couple of my favorites.

He also has a podcast called the Naked Bible. He tackles thorny subjects with thorough exegesis and goes through different books of the bible. It's called Naked Bible because he interprets scripture free of denominational traditions or creeds, he let's the texts speak for themselves.

His content isn't for everyone, as it's quite dense and somewhat controversial. But I'd recommend him none the less.

And Richard Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth.

This book on mindfulness would really help me out! If this is too expensive, my backup book. Thank you!!!

Haha. I'm sorry man, but that will totally not work. This one Jackass wrote a book 88 reasons why the rapture will be in 1988. Not to mention all of the theories from 2000. Nothing happened.

It's rather strange, but people tend to have more faith after the failed claim of the end of the world. I don't understand it, but then I don't understand religion to start with. :)

Heh

https://www.amazon.com/reasons-Why-Rapture-Will-1988/dp/B00073BM8O

The Greatest Show on Earth! Sunflower!

I would love this ebook! I love Richard Dawkings, but seeing as I live with my religious mother, keeping hard copies of books by Dawkins (and other outspoken atheist authors) is a recipe for disaster.

How is it practically August? Seriously, this is ridiculous.

Thanks for the contest!

I would love this book by Richard Dawkins. It's actually already on my wishlist. I love yummy shabu shabu!

>but she still shook her head and explained how she doesn't understand how monkeys just popped up from the big bang.

The same process you used applies here, monkeys didn't just "pop" up, they came from an ancestor. Perhaps a visual like this can help.

> but then she said "What about diseases that are still around, why aren't we at the point where we are immune to everything?

Evolution doesn't 'finish' its an ongoing process. Additionally while some mutations are beneficial and help survival, others just 'come along for the ride' which may ultimately the cause of certain diseases/disorders/etc.

I'm no expert on additional readings, but i did enjoy The Greatest Show on Earth

Michael Heiser wrote his thesis on the topic and later wrote a book.

While I don’t agree with everything, it is worth a read for someone who really did a deep dive on the divine council and spiritual beings.


The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1577995562/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_KqhYDbD7DEYZV

WLC's Defenders class has a section on the Trinity. Talks about the development of the doctrine, objections, and he takes questions from the class during each session.

One of our regulars around here, /u/Im_just_saying, has written a book in the Trinity.

I always recommend the Compendium of the CCC also available for free here, its a bit more accessible and a bit less daunting in size.

No problem! I got mine off of amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Compendium-United-States-Conference-Bishops/dp/1574557203

The Catechism is awesome, but it can be a tad overwhelming. I always recommend the Compendium to people who to lean about the church, but have little background info about it first. It's really outstanding and accessible.

http://www.amazon.com/Compendium-United-States-Conference-Bishops/dp/1574557203

Get a Bible you would read. I like the RSV-CE, but you can also go with the Douay Rheims if you want archaic English or the NAB. Of the Bibles, the Navarre Bible (RSV) has commentary sections from Saints throughout the centuries. They have a single volume version of the New Testament that I use. (Also good, the Ignatius Study Bible, also New Testament only).

I recommend Thomas Howard's If Your Mind Wanders At Mass and Healing Through the Mass by Fr. Robert DeGrandis.

Get the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church, and get the helps put out by Ignatius Press (which contain the texts of all the footnotes). The Compendium is also good, if you want an abridgement.

For Philosophy, I recommend The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin. In that book he takes the writings of seven doctors of the Church and encapsulates them so that a layperson can follow them. You can use that as a springboard to discover your own readings about St. Augustine, St. John of the Cross, etc.

These are all affiliate links, but you do not have to use them.

The Potter's Promise is a response to a pro-Calvinistic book called the Potter's Freedom (by James White).

Good non-Calvinistic preachers include Mike Winger, Leighton Flower and Ravi Zacharias. I'm enjoying "Making Man a Dwelling Place for God" by AW Tozer, and I don't think his denomination took a strong soteriological position either way really. I think it's important to hear evangelical voices from both sides of the divide (as long as they're biblical). Michael Heiser is a bit out there, but I really like his videos and his scholarship is excellent (though he and I disagree on some things); he is non-denominational and clearly not Calvinistic. The Unseen Realm was amazing, though it does make claims regarding the heavenly host which some might disagree with:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unseen-Realm-Recovering-Supernatural-Worldview/dp/1577995562/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Unseen+Realm&qid=1566932793&s=gateway&sr=8-1

I'll get round to reading John Wesley eventually as I've only heard negative views of him from the Reformed camp and need some balance. I tend to use the Kindle app a lot as it lets me access my library from anywhere.

@Physical copies:

Grace and Assurance (and other very pro-Calvinistic, professionally written works) are available in hardcover form for UK order from the CPRC website. Here is the link to Grace and Assurance (£18 as a paperback):

https://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/graceandassurance.html#.XWV-ondFxMs

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible might also be of interest to you. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.

It's true! But you got the year ALL WRONG. I heard of a wonderful book about it: 88 reasons why the rapture will be in 1988!

What makes you think YOU are right this time?

I too have been asking these questions. You will find most if not all of them answered at Catholic Answers. For example, here is one of the answers regarding infant baptism. There is also an article regarding infant baptism in the early church.

Here is an article on why Catholics ask for intercession from the Saints.

They also have a great You Tube channel that will answer just about any question you have.

You may be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament. It contains an Index of Doctrines in the appendix. For any given doctrine, they provide Biblical references and commentary regarding that doctrine. That alone should make this a must read for Protestants. It uses the Revised Standard Version.

There are many great resources that can answer your questions. I started with a video series called What Catholics Really Believe. There's an unrelated book by the same name as well.

Any book by Scott Hahn may be of interest. He was an ordained Presbyterian minister before he became Catholic.

Send me a message if you want any more info.

Another good book is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. It explains Catholic theology from the perspective of a fundamentalist Protestant convert.

Any book by Peter Kreeft would be good, but you may especially like his Handbook of Catholic Apologetics since it specifically answers the questions you are asking. Kreeft is a Catholic convert from Calvinism.

Bp. Barron provides a load of resources on his site Word on Fire. He has a You Tube channel as well.

There are many, many more resources, but this should get you started. I have been a Protestant all my life, but I've been studying Catholicism heavily for a few years. So far, all of my questions have been answered from resources available online.

An updated version of Kreeft and Tacelli's book (and extra couple chapters for Catholics): Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

Edit: I also wish to plug my own favorite, Aquinas' own shorter, yet unfinished, version of the Summa Theologica.

I just bought "Handbook of Catholic Apologetics : Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, and I've found it incredibly useful. It's more a reference book, a comprehensive collection of all the major arguments in favor of Christianity, with a section at the end detailing how Catholicism fulfills Christianity. I've found it indispensable in understanding certain Catholic perspectives, or engaging with my Protestant friends. I found it at my local library, but as soon as I started using it I bought one myself!

Try this book and this blog.

Tho I think she's just goofing around with you. If she's so clever as you make her out to be, it's unlikely that she actually believes this shite.

I sometimes take on strange sides in arguments for purely the pleasure of arguing, maybe she does the same? ;)

Um.. Harry Potter and his friends carefully investigated Hogwarts, ergo it exists. Right?

This guy carefully investigated the Rapture and came up with 88 reasons why i'll happen in 1988.

No ,Ive got 88 reasons why the Rapture will happen in 1988.


https://www.amazon.com/reasons-Why-Rapture-Will-1988/dp/B00073BM8O

This is the best one on Wicca, by a real historian who actually grew up in a pagan family:

Triumph of the Moon

I don't know any decent history of the pagan revival in the broader sense. I have three books on Hellenism, none of which mention that the revival started 200 years ago, and one on Asatru which mentions 1970s Icelanders but not 1930 Australians!

This is a fine book and one to lend to people who ask "why paganism?"

Million and one Gods

Religion isn't about logic. It's about how it makes people feel. Some people have faith, or they have a religious experience that makes all the illogical stuff make much more sense. It's not something you're going to be able to fully understand unless you experience it yourself. Wicca is largely experiential - it's about doing it and feeling it, it's not about knowing the theology. Frankly, Wicca includes a lot of "woo" stuff that isn't 100% logical and doesn't line up with how the majority of people perceive reality.

As an agnostic, I accept that I don't have faith, and so I am never going to be able to fully understand the religious beliefs of people that truly have faith.

Have you read any books on this stuff? I don't mean spell books or Wicca 101. You might like reading some of the more dry, academic books about the evolution of neopaganism, like the Triumph of the Moon by Hutton.

The book you are looking for is Hutton's Triumph of the Moon.

The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton is a good academic but readable history of neopagan Witchcraft.

Talks a lot about the inspiration being the Romantic poets and Victorian attitudes to the occult and nature, gradually leading to Gerald Gardner and Wicca since then.

> Computerization is definitely no panacea, and this is the one issue (albeit one that I don't think is universal) that can not be overlooked. So yes, that political point is very relevant here. That planning proposal I described absolutely requires a free flow of information and universal access to computer systems, and this was politically impossible in the USSR under Brezhnev. Even access to photocopying equipment was strictly controlled for fear of the dissemination of dissent.

The problem is that a central bureau needs to have the power to make people keep to the plan. I mean, what's the point in telling someone to make 100 when they just go ahead to make 200 anyways? So, the bureau and central planners need the power to reward and punish as necessary. This goes back to the root of this whole thing, how can anyone be sure that they are being punished for the greater good instead of for the good of the bureau/government? That's a pretty big gap in trust, even if everything is on the level.

I don't really know how a socialist system would fix that. You don't have to worry about that so much in a Capitalistic one because it says on the tin that they're out for themselves and that it's down to competition.

>I went into (some) detail about this with GnosticGnome. There would still be a market in consumer goods, with all the 'signals' from which would be used to guide the allocation of them. There is no reason why a socialist economy can not have market clearing prices to balance the supply of goods and the demand, by which shortages and surpluses can be avoided. So, appearance of shortage (excess of demand), increase in price. You cause consumers to reduce consumption of good in question, available supply goes up. An appearance of a surplus? Fall in price, encouraging consumers to increase demand for it.


The problem is that once you start taking the control away from the plan and giving it to things that aren't the plan, why take the central planning seriously? I mean, if you aren't changing the defining element of the system, then are you changing the system at all? I mean, how can it be central planning if the central plan merely reports on what would have happened if there wasn't a central plan?

> The difference between a market system and that planned system is this: once that pattern of final output of goods is decided,

There is no final pattern. Every moment someone dies and someone else is born. Every moment someone changes their minds on something, or matures in some way. Who the consumers are today are not who they were yesterday or who they will be tomorrow. You will never hit equilibrium because if it takes time then you will be too late as someone did something somewhere and the ideal quantity and price are now different.

> the allocation of inputs to support that pattern are computed centrally and the required means of production and labor allocated by the planning agency. The enterprises that produce it are not capable of possessing, buying or selling the factories they own.

I don't really know what this is supposed to mean. There's supposed to be a market for finished goods, but not a market for labor or capital? What makes labor anything other than a service? What makes capital anything other than a good? Do we force them to work or produce the tools that make other things possible? Or do we reward them for making the "better" choice like the market currently does?

Why focus so heavily on factories? In fact, with recent developments in 3D printing and robotics we might be looking at a future where there are no factories because things can be produced at the site of consumption from digitally shared plans using standardized raw materials. Assembly lines are great and all, but they aren't the be all and end all of production, the future holds new and different opportunities and systems. Focusing exclusively on last-century industrial processes will only hurt us in the long run.

> I encourage you to look into The Shanghai Textbook. Radical Chinese economists developed a pretty critical look at the Soviet-style of development and economic thought that bashed them for collectivizing the countryside at the expense of the peasantry. About how they focused too much emphasis on heavy industry, so that light industry and agriculture were neglected.

I've read a number of other texts that dealt with the same point coming from different angles. I read The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine by Robert Conquest fairly recently. It seems to be well researched, but it is important that it was published in 1987 and there are better sources available.

There is a lot written about collectivization, most of it points out that it disastrously fails when imposed from the outside. The benefits of collective ownership in an agricultural setting are dubious at best, and whatever gains that are made by the virtues of the system are irrevocably lost if there isn't buy in on the ground floor.

One size does not fit all. Industrial structure doesn't lend itself to agriculture.

> All I can say here is not necessarily so.

It might not be foreordained, but that's certainly how the practical examples we have work out. Either it decomposes into something more akin to market capitalism or it catastrophically fails due to the accumulation of errors and the inability of local individuals to make the necessary adjustments to satisfy needs.

What happened in the USSR during the late 1920s and early 1930s was very similar, but has been considered more systematic. Stalin declared a period of dekulakization in which he wished to eliminate the peasant class, spread socialism to the country side, and collectivize farming.

While it can be argued to what extent Mao Zedong actually knew people were starving, the party definitely knew that a lot of people were going hungry. Stalin on the other hand also included executions, imprisonment, deportations (to Siberia as well as other locations), and labor camps on top of the famine caused by the collectivization of farms. It was certainly more systematic in causing death and by the end of dekulakization about 14.5 million peasants were dead.

Harvest of Sorrow is both a well written and extremely well researched book on the subject.

There is literally no mention of pogroms in the article you listed. Pogroms were only committed by the Russian Empire. Lenin and Stalin were also strong opponents of anti-semitism (I think Stalin said anti-semites should be executed).

>Population transfer in the Soviet Union may be divided into the following broad categories: deportations of "anti-Soviet" categories within the population, who were often classified as "enemies of the workers"; deportations of nationalities; labor force transfer; and organised migrations in opposite directions in order to fill the ethnically cleansed territories. In most cases their destinations were underpopulated and remote areas (see Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union).
>
>Population transfer in the Soviet Union led to millions of deaths that resulted from the hardships that it inflicted upon its victims.

Yes, lots of people died, but you're not going to get accurate numbers because almost every source is from a capitalist/western point of view. Note that the death toll in the above Wikipedia quote comes from The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine written by a British-American at Stanford. Either way, these programs clearly could in no way be classified as mass murder even if they were state violence. Also note that feudal Russia regularly had famines.

Lastly, most of this stuff about the USSR (with the exception of some of the gulags I think) ends after WWII when anti-Stalin leaders came to power.

Of course I'll read some books. Perhaps you should do some reading as well. May I make a few suggestions?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226320618/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400034094/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/140009593X/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195051807/

then I think this book is riiiight down your alley.

http://www.amazon.ca/Harvest-Sorrow-Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807

If you're wanting a history of how religion evolved in that arena, I can recommend this https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493132334&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

I haven't read these yet, but one or both WILL be on my near-term reading list:

Evolution of God

A History of God

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X

I'd recommend you put Evolutionary Analysis and The Counter Creationism Handbook on your reading lists. You really should do that before you start trying to get into these debates at all.

How to teach intelligent design:
1 Teach evolution.
2 Declare that an invisible wizard did it.
This book might help a bit.

It really depends on their line of argument. If they are sceptical of convential science, it may help to point out how pratically everyone was a creationist in the beginning of the 19th century, until, little by little, the evidence convinced almost every one. E.g. a great part of modern geology was founded by creationists .

If you are really involved, you may find this book helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217250530&sr=8-1
It is the tree-ware version of this site http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH on ww.talkorigins.org which was already pointed to before. It features both scientific and theological points. E.g. there are people who believe the world is flat "because the bible says so", so there cannot be such a thing as literalism, you always need interpretation. Also the bible mentions four-legged grasshoppers among other flaws http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101.html.

I read a book about this called The Jesus Mysteries. It is among dozens of books that were influential in liberating me from the Bible, which ultimately liberated me from the JWs. This book really spoke volumes because having been taught so strongly all my life that paganism = BAD, wow, it was quite a slap to realize that Christianity itself was wholly a retread of... drum roll: that very same PAGANISM!

Unfortunately, Witnesses aren't encouraged to read books and here's a prime example of why. When you know too much, you see Christianity - and hence the JWs - in a different light. That's an existential problem for them. They fight it, you might say, in an almost cult-like manner.

I am still very new to the concepts, but I was introduced to Gnosticism by reading The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and The Lost Goddess. The writing style is very digestible for a beginner IMHO. There is a third book i have yet to read, but I’ve enjoyed the first two so far. I’m not sure how much these relate to other gnostic resources, but they were a nice starting point. YMMV!

There is a great book on this topic called The Jesus Mysteries

This idea is not very new.
This book documents how the origin of jesus is identical to a handful of pagan gods. Also here is the Wikipedia page

>>Much of the theology that got layered on top was similar to 'mystery cults'

I'm reading a pretty fascinating book about this right now, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" A Pagan God? It gets into all the ways the Jesus story is a recreation of Dionysus.

Great book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0609807986?pc_redir=1410434314&robot_redir=1

> Paul wasn't a contemporary of Christ. He's not like Peter or James.

But Paul's writings were composed well before anyone claiming to be Peter or James put pen to paper. If there were oral or written traditions that spoke of Jesus' life, background, ministry, and/or miracles prior to Paul, then why the silence on such things in the Epistles? It doesn't matter whether Paul was a witness or not. Would you not expect even some of the basic preachings of Jesus attested in his writings, a word or two, an example of his life? Paul's silence on such matters is nearly deafening.

> I would be interested to know what writings show this. Even the gnostic gospels are more or less the basic same life story.

You can check out The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Earl Doherty, or others on the Jesus Myth theory.

If you're interested here's another good one

i realize that this is not a statement of support for ID. truthfully, i don't know if such a list exists, but since you wouldn't be convinced by such a thing anyway, here's three scientists with scientific reasons for supporting ID:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli.html.

------------------

Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome project would certainly qualify as a fourth.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391.

-------------------

And then there was this video posted to reddit a couple days ago pointing problems with the fossil record, and problems with the scientific community's acceptence of the facts when they don't match their beliefs.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ae_1228315222

---------------------

You'll probably point out that this is hardly "quite a number of high profile scientists." but it's not a bad for my 5 minutes of searching (I'm sure I could turn up a whole lot more with more effort). The original statement I took issue with said "there's nothing scientific about intelligent design."

These four examples would seem to indicate there there is indeed some science to ID.

1. A large majority of books (whether Christian, atheist or some other belief) contain discussions of evidence, but the actual evidence is not contained in the book. You have to look outside of a book to confirm most evidence of any viewpoint. That being said, here's one book: http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631 Feel free to rip it to shreds and tell me why you think it's bunk, then demand another. We could play that game all day, but I don't have the time or the desire.
   
   
2. Of course opinion is not evidence. Nice story. ;)
   
   
3. I strongly suspect that you're guilty of having a viewpoint, then looking for supporting "evidence" as well. That's just typical human behavior. It may not be "a credible way to understand something", but it certainly has it's evolutionary advantages, doesn't it? ;)
   
   > you must consider it without bias
   
   If that is the requirement for having a valid viewpoint, you've just invalidated every living human being's viewpoint, including your own. No one is completely unbiased.

> if requiring a sound basis in evidence matters to you, then faith will never satisfy because it is by definition a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

I wholly (but respectfully) disagree. What you linked contains multiple definitions of faith, and the one you quoted is not one I've ever been encouraged to embrace by any religious teachers I've had. While I'm sure that some Christians discourage asking hard questions, my experience with Presbyterianism (which, granted, has a reputation for heavy intellectualism) has been anything but what you described.

While I have heard that logic must be paired with faith, I don't think it's ever been in a sense different from, say, a physics major might take to learning. It's well beyond most people to conduct experiments to figure out what the gravitational constant on Earth is, yet almost everyone is content to just believe what their physics textbook tells them. This faith in academics is well justified, as we can see the incredible effects physicists have had on our world over the centuries. These effects include not only improvements to the overall quality of human life, but horrific tragedies such as the dropping of the two atomic bombs.

In the same way, most people don't have the time or education to verify everything a pastor might preach to them. However, many people learn what they can (when they can) and, seeing their religious leader's lives changed by their genuine search for truth and desire to serve others, trust that what they are being taught is true.

So, this notion (that redditors seem to live in) that being Christian means automatically dismissing objective thinking isn't true. As for me, I have very little free time as a full time student with a part time job and dreams of grad school. However, in my spare time I do explore apologetics and happily welcome any objections as long as they are presented as you have acted: with respect.

I am currently making my way through Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict as it was recommended to me by one of my most influential teachers. Again, I'm happy to explore objections to Christianity from anyone as long as we're both genuinely seeking truth.

Read this.

And if you believe that what God says is true, then you can justify that he is outside of space and time because what he says is true.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

Here's hoping rms becomes the patron saint of eating toe gunk.

Feser sounds like a good choice. If he's all about "le science" the book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" looks good, although I've only read a very small part of it and got distracted and moved on with life.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but it might be close: http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

It is writings on JPII. Basically taking his Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body and making it accesible to mere mortals.

I highly recommend the introductory essay to Theology of the Body by the translator Michael Maria Waldstein. The guy is incredibly brilliant and distills both the philosophical issues and the theological ones.

As far as JPII's other works, he was heavily influenced by the thomist theologian Matthias Joseph Scheeben. Mysteries of Christianity is a huge work, but its a great primer. Aside from that, I'd agree with /u/Pope-Urban-III, get familiar with St. Thomas first.

In so far as JP2 was a Phenomenologist, he christianized phenomenology; so getting a real solid foundation in phenomenology won't be as helpful as a thomistic foundation.

This is entirely a strawman argument. You're stating what you think the Catholic Church believes, which is incorrect, and then arguing against your mis-stated beliefs. You've either misinterpreted what you've been told, or those people are misinformed themselves.

>It doesn't ultimately matter to me what you (or the CC) want to call doctrine.

Yea, it really does. You can't debate something if you can't even define what it is you're debating.

>I can see something like abortion remaining forbidden indefinitely, but contraception and gay marriage? They're far too recent to be given any quality of immutability as regards the church's teaching on them.

Homosexuality is not a recent occurrence in human history. Engaging in homosexual activity has been consistently addressed as gravely disordered. The fact that people with homosexual tendencies want to now marry in recent years doesn't change anything.

>Catholicism has long upheld a tradition of faith and reason as regards moral issues; that is, they're not truths to be handed down, but rather must be arrived at by reason.

Once again, incorrect. Catholic moral teaching is informed by both revelation (sort of what you're calling faith) and also reason as we understand the natural law, that is, the order of purpose and dignity as God created it with respect to mankind and the world. Catholic moral theology isn't just "reasoned out" with no recourse to the revealed truth that has been handed down.

>This attitude is definitely part of the Catholic tradition.

Not in the way you just described it.

>I'm of the view that there exist no good arguments against gay marriage/contraception

The combined 1,000+ pages of sexual ethics written by John Paul II are apparently rubbish, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Theology of the Body |
Love and Responsibility

>Same goes for ordination of women, though perhaps that will last a little longer (which is mind-boggling, since the arguments against it are even worse than those against gay marriage/contraceptives) if only because PJPII abused his position in an attempt to silence all discussion on it, despite the findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the matter.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission findings do not, themselves, carry any doctrinal weight. It is the Pope, in collegiality with the bishops of the Church that exercise the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope generally directs that discussion and has the prerogative to disagree.

If you want to see what can be drawn from that one little line quoted by LouIchthys, give John Paul II's Theology of the Body a run for your money.

This has nothing to do with the show, but he has done some very well written books recently.

I went to Alpha when I was still a Christian, but when doubts were starting to form. They invite you in by sharing a meal together, watching Gumbel's presentation, and having discussion. The video segments are made up of the same old arguments stating that people are basically bad and need to be made right by the blood of Jesus. It's an effective tool on those who aren't able to or aren't trained in logical/cognitive fallacies.

> I've tried to respectfully challenge her on a couple of things, but she feels that I'm attacking her new found faith.

IMO this is a red flag. Being defensive usually doesn't allow for an open mind. Be wary.

> Are there any good books which help explain non-literalist Christian beliefs to someone who came from a literalist background?

I wouldn't keep pointing in the direction of belief, but rather point in the direction of truth (Plus, we were taught to hate Rob Bell in church):

• Why Evolution is True By Jerry Coyne
  
• Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Bill Nye
  
• Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky
  
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
  
• The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
  
  Pointing in the direction of religion, yields more bad philosophy.

Well one of my favorites is Bill Nye and this book is a very easy read and makes a strong argument... But he is not an expert in climate science, only a scientist who has looked at the argument. How about anyone on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

or NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

take a look at a book called the science of god, which i say all the f-ing time here. but it's a good read if you're interested in this subject.

Both.

The creation stories teach basic truths, such as God created us out of nothing. I'm not 100% sure on this, but they may not have even believe them to be literal fact when written. There is actually a really good book called The Science of God written by a Jewish scholar that presents the position that it may be more true than we usually think. It goes into the physics of creation, evolution and several other topics. I found it very thought provoking. I didn't notice many views contrary to church teaching in there either.

The fall was an event in human history that actually happened. Our first parents [the church holds that we are all descendants from a single set of parents] sinned in some manner. By turning away from God, they brought sin into the world. This defect to human nature is somehow passed on to all of us in the form of Original Sin (which is technically sin in a different sense that mortal and venial sin are).

You might want to check out “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder.

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439129584/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_dOUVDbPBT942M

I'm a religious orthodox Jew, and I want to give note that mine, and other (actually knowledgeable people) view is that the Earth is much much older then 6000 years. And that the scientific view is very much correct.

This book really explains that view well in a scholarly, not like-I'm-five, type way.

The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang might be of interest to you.

This is based on a common lay formulation of what happened on the cross. However it is not an actual doctrine that (most) denominations officially believe. There are a variety of other interpretations that are too numerous and complicated to get into here. There is a very good and short book on this
If your interested. Written by a redditor no less. If not that is also your prerogative.

I read it, not a big fan of Craig and like I said, I passionately disagree with PSA so there's little point in trying to convince me of it's validity. But on a different note, if you are interested in learning more about non-PSA views of the cross, I highly recommend this book that I just read the other day:

http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-And-How-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398025817&sr=8-1&keywords=salvation+and+how+we+got+it+wrong

I'm not offended, I was just a little frustrated because I felt like I was having to repeat myself too much. I'm sorry if I got short with you.

>The question is can our God and Judge forgo the payment for sins and remain just?

Yes. It is perfectly just to forgive someone that has wronged you because you are the one wronged, and if you do not wish to have someone punished for the wrong doing, it ought to be your call to make.

The rest of this is going to take me going through and reading the scriptures you quoted and then responding, which will take a while, but I'm about to go to sleep. I'll hopefully be able to get back to you tomorrow though. And as for a book, I'm glad you asked! Our own /u/im_just_saying wrote this book a little while back on this exact topic. It's a short and easy read, but a good read, and I'm sure he'd be open to answer some questions for you that I haven't covered.

You clearly need to read this book!

The Evolution of God.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X

Harris is an effective rhetorician -- you have to give him that much -- but many of his arguments border on sophistry. The most notable (and, to my mind, revolting) example is this:

> Collins assures us that up until this moment he had been a staunch atheist.

> How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails.

That's a species of argument that is both [fallacious][1] and vicious. It amounts to a kind of ideological protectionism, whereby the purity of atheism is protected by denying that former atheists were ever "really" atheists in the first place. We wouldn't accept that sort of logic in a Christian apologist who dismissed John Loftus as never having really been a Christian, and we shouldn't accept it in Harris' attempts to discredit Collins.

Beyond which, Harris fails to make a solid case to the effect that Collins doesn't understand "what the position of atheism actually entails." Nor could he. There is no single "position of atheism", as Harris would be quick to point out if a religious apologist were to invoke that phrase to make a point. And what is entailed by any particular instance of atheism depends wholly on what beliefs that atheism is couched in. There are, after all, atheists who believe ghost, in reincarnation, in homeopathic medicine, or in absolute morality. So long as they do not believe in gods, they cannot be said to have misinterpreted the "position of atheism", and it would be just as fallacious and vicious to say that they aren't and never have been atheists.

Which is, of course, the big problem with any standard that makes it possible to dismiss it out of hand when someone like Collins says that because they did not believe in gods they were, at one time, an atheist. Such a standard can likewise be turned against people who presently take themselves to be atheists. You're not an advocate of Enlightenment-era Rationalism? Then you're not an atheist! You don't believe the potential mother should have the final say over whether or not to abort a pregnancy? Then you're not an atheist! And, more to the point, you don't believe that there's an inherent conflict between religion and science? Well...

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

What are you trying to do here? I give you a brief glimpse into the mind of a mad man and you expect me to explain why he doesn't write about genocide?

Most serious historical accounts of what happened in Ukraine reach the conclusion that there was enough food to prevent starvation (despite the decline in output due to the brutal transition to collectivization), but the foodstuffs were withheld essentially to allow for ethnic cleansing. If you seriously want a full picture, read this book.

https://www.amazon.ca/Harvest-Sorrow-Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807

True that.

Too bad one of the head evangelicals, Francis Collins, is such an asshole and won't do anything about it, and he knows how to do it. I've read his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and what utter trash. I picked it up thinking, "a-ha" finally someone with credentials will explain to me in language I understand. I couldn't believe the trash he wrote. He did include real science, that is for sure. But it was as if he took real science and interspersed it with standard religious text that anyone could have written. He then alternated chapters, one having nothing to do with the other. There was no linkage at all. I guess he wants to make people think that because he is the head of the NIH, and put some "science-y" words with standard irrational religious tracts, that somehow confers some legitimacy to the religious part. And then, the language he used was far from scientific. It was biased as hell. His favorite epithet is "angry atheist." I see that all the time in all his writings. He sure didn't spare it in his The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Pretty shitty biased words were used throughout the book - science does not try to bias it's work. Even though it is difficult, science tries not to - one of the many ways is not use non-biased language.

Francis Collins, evangelicalism's main man, is a joke.

He also wrote this book where he all but decries hereditary genetics, blaming disproportionate IQs on biased testing and cultural/environmental issues, all of which has been disproved many times before. Unfortunately, he's more of a pop star than a scientist. I've said it before but I'll take an E. O. Wilson over a Bill Nye any day.

EDIT: Downvoted by people who couldn't tell you who E. O. Wilson is.

>Nice cherry picking. In the U.S., that ignores The New Deal, the creation of the modern social safety net, Medicare, Medical, the public school system, and various other secular progressive achievements over the last 50-60 years.

Shame on me to focus on minor glitches rather than the glorious public school system and the progressive eugenics movement.

>The lessons from evil theocracies are well learned

What about the lessons from awesome ones? You can't seriously maintain they're all the same. I couldn't care less about Christian conservatives. The religion is imploding. This is a post-Christian America. Given the crap from the race-realist right, you might miss the religious right.