(Part 2) Best religions and sacred texts books according to redditors
We found 320 Reddit comments discussing the best religions and sacred texts books. We ranked the 140 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Based on your post, I have a suspicion that you're not actually a "free thinker". Why? Because you've fallen for a marketing trick.
Back in the early 2000s, a few years after the 9/11 attacks when people were starting to use the internet much more frequently, a certain viewpoint regarding religion starting gaining popularity. This has been referred to as "new atheism". It used terms like "free thinker" and "rational" and "fallacies" and even "science" as cultural buzzwords to sell books and speaking events.
And now, over a decade later, you're looking at "A free-thinker's list of essential reads" which includes some extremely questionable books. The God Delusion is especially shit, and I say that as an atheist. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris leave a lot to be desired.
In fact, I actually recommend that people who are interested in getting into philosophy of religion read The God Delusion. But not because it's good. Quite the opposite. It's the best book ever written for the purposes of practicing identification of poor reasoning. Seriously, there are so many flaws in it that explaining them all would take me dozens of max-length reddit comments.
If you want to be a "free thinker" regarding religious questions, you need to scrap that list and read actual philosophers. One of my favorite works of all time on the atheist side is Theism and Explanation by Gregory Dawes: https://www.amazon.com/Explanation-Routledge-Studies-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0415997380; and on the theist side, The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne: https://www.amazon.com/Existence-God-Richard-Swinburne/dp/0199271682.
Now, keep in mind that these are both academic works, and getting through them might be difficult if you're not familiar with philosophy of religion. But that's ok. Even if you don't "get" everything, they'll improve your thinking a great deal. And if you want more recommendations, PM me anytime. I am extremely well-read in philosophy of religion and can give you dozens and dozens of more things to read.
EDIT 2: u/valegrete attempted to talk some sense into me. I think he half succeeded? I hope? Whatever, here we go.
If you are Catholic and are shaken by the current stuff going on DO NOT JUMP SHIP TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. AS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN, I AM PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT. Bishops are idiots, like the rest of us. Their mistakes, unlike ours, are writ large, and while I've had quite a few nasty things to say about the Catholic hierarchy on here as of late, that is no excuse to tell someone else to jump ship. The Roman Catholic tradition is extremely rich. Get fed, focus on what you're doing, call out your bishop for being an idiot or heretic if you have to, persevere!
If you are needing an idea of where to start, I heartily recommend the following Roman Catholic works:
The Ways of Mental Prayer. I just flat out recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn to pray, regardless of which Church you're in. It's great.
The Three Ages of the Interior Life: This book is nuts. It's amazing. Read it. Consider it essential.
If, after reading those two giants of modern Roman Catholic theology, you are still dissatisfied, well, that's a different matter. But by that point that's a conversation I'm not going to be a part of, most likely. Regardless, do not despair.
I don't like the article. I think it's insulting and ill-informed. But I left the idea that it's easy to find Truth a very long time ago, out of necessity over a variety if circumstances that are best not gotten into here. The point is, if you're shaken by this, it's a call to deeper investigate the Faith, not a boot out the door. If, after praying about it and coming to the conclusion that God is calling you to the Orthodox Church, know that I sure wouldn't stop you. But do not leave because of all that is going on in Rome. You will never become what God made you to be if bishops determine your life like this, spiritual and otherwise. The rest of what's below are my thoughts on the article. I stand by them. I will continue to stand by them. I sure as hell don't like it. But do not take it as a sign that I want you to leave the Catholic Church. That would do us all a disservice.
ORIGINAL POST
As an Orthodox, I find the article laughable. Peter being the Prince of the Apostles is universally acclaimed and has never been a real issue. The man's entire article misses what Orthodoxy is so fundamentally that it walks into actual hysterics on my end.
EDIT 1: So, a lot of people asked for me to elucidate. Here we are. I do not begrudge the man for going Roman Catholic. I do not understand his heart and I do not know what God put there. I do not pretend to know those things. But what he's written here is just execrable and is an active stumbling block to unity, which I think God not only wants but demands. The world will suffer because of Catholic and Orthodoxy idiocy, and this man is contributing to it. My post will attempt to clear up three things: the point of Orthodoxy, how this point relates to the hierarchy, and thus why the Orthodox hierarchy the way it is. I do not pretend that modern Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't have problems, nor do I think his points about ecclesial unity are wholly without basis. But I do think he missed the point so widely as to make his comments profoundly unhelpful. And that does anger me.
Now onto the actual article.
Primacy is not the same as supremacy. Rome is prime. Yup. I said it. All you uberdox get over it. Rome has the right of final appeal, as the First Ecumenical Council teaches. But Rome's primacy does not mean the supremacy of Vatican I. He cannot shove things down everyone's throat, which is entirely what Vatican I was. No Father that was not a Pope taught the supremacy of Rome. It doesn't exist. Hell, you can't even get St. Jerome to agree to the idea that a bishop and a priest are actually different sacramentally, nevermind whether or not another bishop can be over another! The writer of the article misses how toxic that council was, and that nobody with a conscience would agree with how it was implemented (which included the Pope calling the Melkite Patriarch to sign the document and calling him troublesome for refusing to do so!) Rome can hold a primacy without Vatican I. And, honestly, with more than five minutes of looking at that miserable council, I can't in good conscience agree to it.
The difference of focus in Orthodoxy means that clarity (or the lack thereof) is not an issue. You are there to heal. That is it. You are being drawn into the apophatic Trinity and the idea that there is clarity here in this life is something wholly alien to it. The circumstances for healing shift so greatly between people that saying "there is a universal rule" is something Orthodox are quite loathe to answer quickly (read: a few hundred years). How you heal is going to be different to another person's. It's just the way that it operates, and the writer misses that, egregiously so. By valuing clarity over healing I think a lot of harm is done. I also, personally, find it to be an immature wish for a world that frankly does not exist.
The unity of the Orthodox is far greater than anything I've seen in the Catholic Church. There is no confusion about theosis, or liturgy. It does not exist in the endemic state that has always existed in the Catholic Church. And this is without someone trying to rule the roost. We agree because are there for healing, and certain principles heal everyone, with the rest of it necessarily needing to not be so clear.
If you have any other questions I will update this post, as much as I can.
I'm a total asshole normally, but I can clarify:
The UUA and the UUMA (the governing organization and minister organization respectively) of the Unitarian Universalist religion have embraced Robin DiAngelo's approach to understanding race relationships in the United States. The idea behind this has typically been referred to as "Critical Race Theory". It is derived from the post-modern critical approach used by Harvard law professors to pick apart and change laws.
DiAngelo's approach states the following:
That's what is generally known as a Kafka Trap. The denial of the charge is proof of the charge. It's also circular reasoning. As a result, the UUA has started calling the Unitarian Universalist church a "White Supremacist Organization".
Yes. The UUA, one of the most liberal churches in the United States is the equivalent of the KKK in the minds of the UUA. They deny that, but most are hearing it that way.
And this is going beyond race relations. It's embracing the full spectrum of intersectional oppressions. Who is allowed to speak is based off the "Oppression Calculus" - gay? one point. Trans, Queer, Black? 1,000 points! YAY!
If you read r/TrueOffMyChest, you'll see all those posts regarding lesbians hating on the LGBTQ communities on here. Some are saying that the posts are fake - but in the UU church? Those are actual debates being had. It isn't a joke.
At our recent GA (General Assembly) a minister wrote a book ("The Gadfly Papers" - here). This book has resulted in a total firestorm. You can google it, but a good summary can be found by Rev. Scott Wells.
What is sad, is that - in general - your average UU supports things like fighting racism. The minister who wrote the book, Rev. Todd Eklof, actually has a successful history of fighting for generally liberal positions (gay marriage, prison reform). However, he has been labbled a bigot, a racist, and been formally censured by the UUMA for his "bad" beliefs. His bad belief is that the anti-racism model proposed by DiAngelo isn't working and we should find better tools to combat racism.
That's it.
As a note, the UU church has dealt with pedophiles, abusive ministers and more - and never given a public censure like they did to Eklof. Writing a book, however, was worthy of a public censure.
In a religion founded on the right to read (See: "Edict of Torda" - here).
Back to the OP.
In 1995, if you had asked me to go to a UU church I would have enthusiastically told you yes. Now I'm not certain. Is the church "liberal"? No, not any longer. My concern is that if the OP is classically homosexual, i.e. male with a male partner, or female with a female partner - they'll be generally seen as "supporting hetnormative and oppressive sex organ preference". I want to say I'm kidding but that's a direct quote from a queer trans minister who was at May Memorial right here in Syracuse. Edit to add: That these attitudes are also directed at trans people who want to just live their life. It's very sad - hence why I said fetish. Any variance will result in you being treated like a fragile religious idol - you aren't welcome for you as an individual, you'll be welcome for you as a symbol of a group - and if you deviate from your supposed groups "opinions" you'll be shunned as if it was discovered the idol actually had been made unclean. Your group identity is more important than yourself as an individual - and now, you as a person do not matter - only your group matters. And I don't think that's right. Liberalism was founded on the ideal of the individual - being trans or gay or black or Hispanic are certainly important qualities of the individual, but they do not subsume the individual. Two trans people, two gay people, two black people, two Hispanic people can all hold different beliefs and ideals. It doesn't make them less in their quality as people. But in the UU church today, it does.
So yeah, go but 1) I'd recommend First UU over May Memorial, and 2) be VERY careful with what you say - any deviation from the anti-racist DiAngelo work WILL get you labeled as an alt right firebrand on par with Trump and Hitler. No, I'm not joking. If you want to learn more check out both r/UUReddit for the pro-UUA camp, and r/UUnderstanding for my take (DISCLAIMER: I'm a mod at UUnderstanding).
However, I'd start with the Rev. Scott Wells. I'm biased. He actually doesn't like the Gadfly Papers, but also doesn't like how Eklof was treated. He also is much closer to the action and gives better insights into the sausage making processes within the UUMA.
I personally don't think any sort of cognitive approach can get you closer to awakening other than learning about better ways to meditate. They're just two totally different ways of perceiving the world. That said, though, you should definitely check out Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics. It's about how science and eastern mysticism (mostly Buddhism) are converging on the same truths. Excellent read.
Hey lampshade! Welcome, and thanks for the question.
A good place to start if you're looking for Baha'i books is the Baha'i Reference Library, which has a number of authoritative Baha'i texts. You can also find all of these for purchase at the Baha'i Bookstore online, and for free in e-book form.
The order you read them in kind of depends on your own background and what you're interested in, but a good place to start is with Bahá'u'lláh's Hidden Words, which is like a distillation of the spiritual teachings that lie at the core of all of the world's great religions.
If you have a strong mystical bent, you might want to follow that up with Bahá'u'lláh's Seven Valleys and Four Valleys, or Gems of Divine Mysteries. Both of these are essentially letters to individuals who had asked about certain spiritual truths, such as the path taken by a soul on its spiritual journey.
If you're really interested in Bahá'u'lláh's teachings on the evolution of religion throughout history, and His interpretation of past religious prophecies, you should definitely read the Book of Certitude, aka the Kitáb-i-Íqán. I've known a lot of people who've started learning about the Bahá'í Faith through this book; it really delivers some penetrating spiritual insights.
There are also more general introductory books about the Bahá'í Faith that are available. Two commonly recommended books for those interested in reading about the Bahá'í Faith are A Short History of the Bahá'í Faith by Peter Smith, and A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith by Moojan Momen. If you want a very quick foretaste of both books, you can check out this combined review. Smith has also published a newer book, An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith, which you might want to consider as well.
In the past, the economic contest (to win in business) was separate from the legal contest (the pursuit of justice). This broke down when some entities became so rich as to make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to match their legal resources.
A great discussion of this issue in Beyond the Culture of Contests by Michael Karlberg.
Rick Alan Ross is a cult expert. Although it's not specifically about Jonestown this book explores the psychological damage and how to recover from it...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X
So - here's the dangerously short version.
18th French Masons had difficulty accepting the idea that Freemasonry was of "rude" origin, viz. stoneworkers. Common replacements became religious heretics, chivalric orders (eventually everyone agreed KT was the best story), the Rosicrucians, Ancient Egypt, lost heirs and pretenders, gray aliens, Knights with red feathers on their head... you name it.
The origin of eccosais (french for Scottish) is that during the Glorious Revolution when the Scottish King - er, um - bravely ran away to France (circa 1786) a number of Scottish Masons/Engineers were in tow thus bringing Freemasonry to France.
Eccosais currents were often Jacobite, almost always include the preservation of the Word (a direct jab at the English for loosing it), and gear towards the Qabbalah, not chivalric currents - though in time, as seen in the AASR, everyone learned how to play along and chivalric Masonry was placed firmly above everything else - unless you count the secret work, which is a whole other discussion.
Reading List
I highly suggest you read this book as it is quite enjoyable. That said, it is not really, as mentioned below, accurate.
I recommend you follow up reading Born in Blood with reading Compasses and the Cross.
http://www.amazon.com/Compasses-Cross-Stephen-Dafoe/dp/0853182981
Whole libraries have been written on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X/ref=pd_sim_14_7?ie=UTF8&dpID=41kqOer3qDL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1GH4JJDV4XA1R22TQPV5
It's really late where I am so I'll just be brief and say if I was in your shoes right now I would bust myself to get into college and read through Bonnie Zieman's ebook as self-therapy until you can avail yourself of the real thing. I'm doing the same thing but I'm in my 30s, seize this opportunity while it is easier.
https://www.amazon.com.au/EXiting-JW-Cult-Handbook-Witnesses-ebook/dp/B00YCJSJ5S
And go you for writing your story at the meeting!
I am fascinated with both topics as well.
Recommendations on anthropology of religion:
Recommendations on philosophy of religion:
I had a therapist but she really didn't get the cult dynamic. I called Steve Hassan's center and spoke to a woman there for twenty minutes and felt better than after weeks of therapy. There's also an exJW recovery workbook.
EXiting the JW Cult: A Healing Handbook: For Current & Former Jehovah's Witnesses by Bonnie Zieman http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YCJSJ5S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_udp_api_a0ClxbQYMSBQA
If you need help along the way there's no shame in that. I ultimately did benefit from therapy, and it helped me put myself back together.
John Sweeney.
He da man!
He also wrote a very funny book about the experience.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Church-Fear-Inside-Scientology/dp/1909269034
Oh, and TonyOrtega.Org blogs the latest every single day.
>^(~)^(Chaos)^(.)
Entropy: Jeremy Rifkin
The Tao of Physics: Fritjof Capra
These two help with a bit of a framework to ford the physicl/metaphysical gulf.
Found it, but a link would have been awfully convenient.
http://www.amazon.com/Create-Your-Own-Religion-Instructions/dp/1938875028/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1367700028&sr=8-1
Looks interesting.
> This is seriously one of the weakest objection I've ever heard against the PSR. What does this even mean? Of course God is not obligated to create our universe or any anything for that matter. How does this affect the PSR? There is no explanation other than the 'because'.
It shows that the PSR is self refuting because even a god cannot satisfy it. To put it into a more logical form:
r/https://bit.ly/2wJRxaL
Please feel free to refute that.
> Next: the brute fact response. This still leaves our most basic thirst about understanding reality unquenched. The universe is contingent; there is no way around even when involving science, math, etc--whatever. If it is possible for it to not exist, it is contingent.
Our thirst is technically irrelevant, since we can thirst for things like the color of jealousy, which obviously has no answer. What matters is part of logic. Regarding the possibility of the universe not existing, that assumes it is logically possible that the universe not exist. But so too is god. It is not logically necessary that the god theists believe in exist because other conceptions of god are possible. Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?
Logical necessity cannot explain this scenario. There is no way to show in principle why god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and not one just slightly different, or even radically different, or no universe at all. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to desire to create our universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact. He can try and say "It's because god wanted a relationship with us," but that wouldn't answer the question at all. Why did god want a relationship with us? Is that logically necessary? Could god exist without wanting a relationship with anyone? And still, even if god wanted a relationship, why did he have to desire this particular universe? There are an infinitude of logically possible universes god could have desired that would allow him to have a relationship with someone else that for no reason god didn't timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create. A theist can also try to argue that "our universe is the best of all possible worlds, and therefore god had to desire it." But this claim is absurd on its face. I can think of a world with just one more instance of goodness or happiness, and I've easily just thought of a world that's better.
The theist is going to have to eventually come to a brute fact when seriously entertaining answers to these questions. Once he acknowledges that there is no logically necessary reason god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and that god could have timelessly and eternally existed with a different desire, he's in exactly the same problem he claims the atheist is in when he says the universe is contingent and could have been otherwise, and therefore cannot explain itself. Hence, even positing a god doesn't allow you to avoid brute facts. There is no way to answer these questions, even in principle, with something logically necessary.
> God, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish; if God exists, he must exist necessarily. Merely saying it is a brute fact does not get around this; it's getting at that the universe is not contingent. Some think that there could be an infinite chain of causes to get us here. Maybe so. But how does this help? The chain is still contingent.
Nope. If god with eternal contingent (non-necessary) desire X exists, there cannot in principle be a logically necessary reason why that god exists, since a god with another non-necessary desire is just as possible. Hence god is just as contingent as the universe, lest you want to resort to special pleading.
>This is more of the New Atheism that is pure sophistry. 'Simple Logic'. Yikes. There are good objections to the PSR; this is obviously not one of them.
Not at all. This is serious logic showing how even you cannot answer the basic questions of why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible? The only possible answer must be contingent, since a necessary one is off the table.
>I am not a Catholic but here is a very sophisticated defense of the PSR. Pruss is a Catholic. Pruss is brilliant here as well.
>
>Timothy O'Connor has my favorite book on the topic here
It is impossible to defend the PSR and all attempts to claim otherwise depend on false arguments from consequence.
> Fantastic, thank you. Are you saying you do believe in a systemized natural theology, and if so, whose (or does it most resemble)?
I am attracted to both Thomistic and Leibnizian cosmological-style arguments.
> what exactly did Kierkegaard mean by “Leap of Faith” and how does it relate to the common colloquial use of the term?
Kierkegaard doesn’t actually use that phrase. I believe it was Alastair McKinnon who first noted—in “Kierkegaard,” 19th Century Religious Thought in the West, vol. 1, ed. Smart et al. (1985)—that the term “leap of faith” does not occur in Kierkegaard but was an invention of his commentators. Kierkegaard does speak of “the leap,” but it is given different specifications depending on the context. Primarily it is used to refer to a qualitative existential transition (e.g., from the aesthetic to the ethical life, or the ethical to the religious life).
That said, there is still much to recommend the term “leap of faith” as naming the specifically religious transition. Some say it is more of a leap “to” faith, but both phrases highlight elements that are present in that concept—i.e., faith pertains to both the leap’s formal character and its teleological trajectory. However, faith is not the ultimate terminus for Kierkegaard; faith itself is directed to God. Thus Kierkegaard identifies “the good” with “the God-relationship” (Works of Love, p. 339); “to love God is the highest good” (Christian Discourses, p. 200).
> it seems to me he’s wanting to persuade “Christians” to be Christians, not just pay lip service.
This seems to me an accurate reading, and Tietjen’s recent book is good on that aspect of Kierkegaard.
> Yet I come across it all the time used by atheist materialists assuming it means suspending one’s reason and believing “just because”.
To be sure, it’s a versatile phrase, but for Kierkegaard at least it does not mean (and Kreeft in the above book points this out at one point, too) a leap “in the dark.”
I agree that it becomes difficult to say one studies a subject when they have not read any of the texts directly related to it. Too many people read a little xenu.com and decide they know more about Scientology than every Scientologist on the planet.
Two books I recommend if you don't have them are Self Analysis and Creation of Human Ability.
Self Analysis basically is a big book of memory recall exercises like "remember your body position the last time you ate chocolate" or "remeber the feel of the weight of your body tha last time you heard a dog barking".
Creation of Human Ability is a bunch of exercises about developing "exteriorization" (basically out of body experiences for those not familiar with the term) and actually a lot of the exercises in there are not unlike the original OT levels.
BTW for an academic take on Scientology I frequently recommend to people Scientology: History of a New Religion by Dr. Hugh Urban which covers all of the main points and controversies in a very professional and objective way.
I do not recommend The Church of Scientology by Gordon Melton though. Its academic-ish (but claims to be academic) but it glosses over the controversies so badly you would almost think that it was written by the Church of Scientology itself.
Here's a book on agnosticism, in case that's what you're looking for:
http://www.amazon.ca/Divinity-Doubt-The-God-Question/dp/1593156294
The Southern California Research Lodge gives them out for free to any of their members that notifies them of a newly petitioned Entered Apprentice.
> Our prime project is in the field of candidate education or awareness. When a member of the Research Lodge notes an Entered Apprentice degree to be conferred in his Lodge, he notifies us, giving the name, address and date of degree. We then mail the member a free copy of Allen Roberts' The Craft and Its Symbols for presentation to the candidate when he receives his First Degree. Reading the book will no doubt smooth his way through the balance of his degrees. Due to the nature of the program, candidates in One Day Classes are not eligible. The candidate's address is their passkey to the second half of our program, in which we put the newly initiated Brother on our mailing list for three months, giving him a brief education and information on our Craft. One Day Class members are eligible for the mailings. Due to time and postage, foreign members are not eligible for the program.
Membership in the SCRL is $20.
Edit: Also, Amazon, but it looks like the "new" versions are way more than what I've been able to find elsewhere on the Internet. If you don't trust the Amazon affiliates program, Macoy's has them, also.
Our Lodge gives a copy of this book to every newly raised Master at the same time he's presented his Bible and apron.
This doesn't sound like a truly open mind and heart to me. When he hears marginalized people (where he puts marginalized in scare quotes) asking him to listen to their viewpoints, he thinks he's being silenced completely. He sounds like he's against being asked to be mindful of his privileges and of the way his actions come across to others and the harm they may cause others.
I am still completely baffled that there's backlash against the idea that we should be more inclusive, that we should listen to voices that are often pushed to the margins, and that we should strive to understand the systems that benefit us that others don't have the benefit of.
​
>get ready to be told that:
>
>Disagreement is injury
>
>Books can be condemned by people who haven’t read them
>
>People can be condemned for expressing “hurtful” ideas
>
>Those of us who don’t meet the accepted definition of “marginalized” should be silent to leave more “room” for the marginalized
>
>The UU Ministers’ Association can define the meaning of “responsible” in the Fourth Principle about a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
>
>The UU Principles and Sources need to be examined and revised in favor of something more “covanental”
>
>We who are white need to be careful not to welcome persons of color too warmly into our congregations lest they think “our” means white (a “microaggression”)
>
>The UU hymnals need to be scoured for any references that might not be all-inclusive enough (like Standing on the Side of Love)
>
>If we don’t like something, it’s part of the white supremacy culture
>
>We all need to read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo even though it makes sweeping generalizations not backed by research
>
>We should not bother reading books like The Gadfly Papers by Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof and The Self-Confessed “White Supremacy Culture” by Dr. Anne Larson Schneider because some people’s feelings might be hurt
>
>White people need to acknowledge their “privilege” and their “benefit” they get from racism and white supremacy
/u/quintessentialaf have you by chance read this? It reminded me of your podcast name. It's interesting for someone who may have just started to question religion.
Cleopatra's Needle had 9,000 Freemasons parading the streets of new york when it arrived.
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
I looked what he's been up to lately and he published a book about them just a few months ago. I'd imagine if they had got bored of winding him up, that probably renewed their vigour.
I'd say one difference between Mein Kampf and Leviticus is that Hitler did write Mein Kampf while Moses didn't write Leviticus, so it isn't a first-hand account of his life, but rather a mythologizing of his lfe by others. Though the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus, is attributed to Moses, much of the Pentateuch was likely written by other authors. Leviticus was probably written by the Priestly Source.
>The entire book of Leviticus is probably composed of Priestly literature. Most scholars see chapters 1-16 (the Priestly code) and chapters 17-26 (the Holiness code) as the work of two related schools, but while the Holiness material employs the same technical terms as the Priestly code, it broadens their meaning from pure ritual to the theological and moral, turning the ritual of the Priestly code into a model for the relationship of Israel to God: as the tabernacle is made holy by the presence of Yahweh and kept apart from uncleanliness, so Yahweh will dwell among Israel when Israel is purified (made holy) and separated from other peoples.
Reference: Book of Leviticus
But that's an aside. In regards to your point regarding Hitler and Mein Kampf, unfortunately, there isn't much biographical regarding Hitler's religious views as a child aside from his own writings. Granted, political leaders may embellish or alter details of their life for political purposes in an autobiography and in that respect Hitler might be little different than current political leaders who make a great show of their piety to gain the support and contributions of religious voters.
Even in regards to his later life, his actual views are debatable. Many do suggest he only pretended to be a Christian, but a German general relates a statement indicating his support for Catholicism even when he was chancellor of Germany.
>Although, as it turned out, the Nazi Party did not have a good relationship with the Catholic hierarchy, this, per se, is not strong circumstantial evidence that Hitler renounced Catholicism. And there is no evidence that he left the Catholic church during his life. Indeed, we know from German general Engel (Engel's 1974 book At the Heart of the Reich: The Secret Diary of Hitler's Army Adjutant) that as late as the fall of 1941, less than four years before his death, and after his Final Solution decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe, Hitler said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Reference: Divinity of Doubt: The God Question by Vincent Bugliosi, page 227
One can always argue that he concealed his true feelings from subordinates as well, of course.
Though it may have been motivated by political reasons, he expressed a need to maintain the churches to Albert Speer while he was chancellor:
>Speer recalled that when in 1937 Hitler heard that many of his followers had dropped their church membership upon the urging of party and SS leaders, he forbade his close collaborators, including Goring and Goebbels, to do so; and that in 1942 he insisted upon the absolute necessity to maintain the churches. He "condemned sharply the struggle against the churches: a crime against the future of the people: to substitute a 'Party-ideology' is an impossibility."
I think the need for many Christians to insist Hitler wasn't a Christian stems from the view that he represents the embodiment of evil and so it would be unacceptable to them that he might share their religious beliefs. As the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall put it:
>What we suppose Nazism must surely have been about usually tells us as much about contemporary societies as about the past purportedly under review. The insistence that Nazism was an anti-Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years.... Exploring the possibility that many Nazis regarded themselves as Christian would have decisively undermined the myths of the Cold War and the regeneration of the German nation ... Nearly all Western societies retain a sense of Christian identity to this day.... That Nazism as the world-historical metaphor for human evil and wickedness should in some way have been related to Christianity can therefore be regarded by many only as unthinkable.
Reference: Religion in Nazi Germany
Buy this book share it with your bros
https://www.amazon.com/Craft-Its-Symbols-Allen-Roberts/dp/0880530588
A man I looked up to was a Satanist.
A decade later, I was thinking about how in Christian mythology Lucifer was essentially Prometheus, and in the same way that fire literally and figuratively enlightened Mankind, Old Nick gave us the gift of knowledge.
I did some cursory research about Lucifer, and the guy seemed right up my alley. I'd always enjoyed his portrayal in various forms of fiction(my absolute favorite being Job: A Comedy of Justice; if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it. Let me know what you think!), so I picked up a copy of The Satanic Bible. I read it, and re-read it, then picked up a few more books.
The absolute best Satanic book, by the way, is Peter H. Gilmore's The Satanic Scriptures.
I love that Satanism actually is for everyone, except perhaps the most ascetic, devout monks! Do you care about your worldly existence more than some nebulous post-life existence? Well then. Hail Satan!
The most common way that I "use" it is... well, you know how in old cartoons, characters would get a little devil on one shoulder telling them to do something naughty, and a little angel on the other shoulder telling them to be righteous? Well, I just have that little devil on one shoulder telling me how best to be the person I want to be. Turns out I don't need an angel.
My number one piece of advice, though, is very easy to remember:
You have to have a sense of humor to be a Satanist.
No excuses, no exceptions.
comment content: Ditto for the Hidden Words. One of the best books to get a brief, yet potent idea of the profound spiritual truths that underlie not only the Bahá'í Faith, but all of the divine religions. Gleanings is the next level up IMO; it's a collection of longer passages that dive much deeper into Bahá'u'lláh's Writings. As well, I find 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Paris Talks give a good introduction to a variety of key Bahá'í principles.
Regarding introductory books about the Bahá'í Faith, as opposed to Scripture: A few commonly recommended books are A Short History of the Bahá'í Faith by Peter Smith, A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith by Moojan Momen, and The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion by Douglas Martin and William Hatcher. Smith also published a newer, updated book, An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith.
subreddit: bahai
submission title: Recommended book in Amazon?
redditor: dragfyre
comment permalink: https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/5vvad2/recommended_book_in_amazon/de62dud
I felt the same way after I first rediscovered my Catholic faith. I read a lot by the Carmelite mystics, and I even thought about the Carthusians. As I continued to discern my vocation, I eventually saw my attraction to those orders as God growing my interior life rather than a vocation (I'm now happily married with my first child on the way!). Before diving right into St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila, I recommend reading Fr. Thomas Dubay.
Or better yet, if you have some theology or philosophy background already, read Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or Fr. Adolph Tanqueray.
Carthusians: http://transfiguration.chartreux.org/
Benedictines in Norcia: https://en.nursia.org/
More Benedictines (I think): https://clearcreekmonks.org/
Fire Within by Thomas Dubay https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Within-Teresa-Gospel-Prayer/dp/0898702631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491394&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+dubay+fire+within
Three Ages of the Interior Life by Fr. Garrigou Lagrange https://www.amazon.com/Three-Ages-Interior-Life/dp/1492390976/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491194&sr=8-3&keywords=garrigou+lagrange
The Spiritual Life by Adolphe Tanquerey https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Life-Adolphe-Tanquerey/dp/0895556596
Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Night-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486426939/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491335&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+night+of+the+soul
The Way of Perfection by St. Theresa of Avila https://www.amazon.com/Way-Perfection-Image-Classics/dp/0385065396
These definitely have satanic undertones, or more aptly, Luciferian. Hence the eyes. Notice how that one phone case has a Pharoah on it? Egyptian lore is very important for both Masonic and theistic satanism. Just ask the Temple of Set
I totally understand wearing stuff like that, I've worn stuff that had imagery I didn't fully understand the depths of at the time. When I did understand it, I retired those clothes. thats just me though. It just seems a bit sad to me people wear this stuff everywhere lately, and have no idea what it means. I wouldn't want to advertise this stuff.
look at those who push such trends like the aforementioned Jay Z
If you'd like to know more about this stuff, here's a PDF of "Morals and Dogma by 33rd degree mason and klan leader Albert Pike. Notice the top quote:
Lucifer the light bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not!
Sorry, for some reason I didn't notice your reply.
In your blog, you don't make a combined argument. You only vaguely reference other arguments in answer to criticisms, but the criticisms aren't adequately addressed in the arguments you refer to.
Making one argument at a time should make things easier for you. If you can't even make one argument, why should I believe that you can make many? What's the point in coming to a debate forum if you just point to your website?
> What do you mean by 'natural processes that lean towards complexity'? Can you give me an example? The second law of thermodynamics would seem to suggest otherwise.
Universal processes forming in some way need not contradict the second law, even within our universe. If you consider natural forces outside our current universe, then that isn't even a concern. An example might be the discovery of more fundamental physical forces that act to constrain the other emergent laws in such a way as to lead to complexity. The more fundamental physics might be relatively free of specific universal constants, or "fine tuning".
It's easy to imagine that there is a more fundamental physics yet to be uncovered, that will unify the current forces of physics.
> Let's say that you walk into a casino, and somebody bets you that you cannot guess the number that an unknown number of dice will add up to, for a million dollars. You randomly guess 120...
But you have no reason to equate complexity with a very specific value like 120.
Let me put it this way. It seems like you're speaking about philosophical possibilities, rather than actual possibilities (or plausible differences that might have actually happened in our current reality).
If that's the case, then you have no reason to only assume the physical laws and universal constants that currently exist. It's possible that there are any number of physical laws for a possible universe, which include any number of possible universal constants. You should also take into account possible steady-state universes, and so on and so on.
You can only say that complexity is improbable by making these unfounded assumptions about known physics, and discarding other possibilities.
My argument about God not being a good explanation hasn't been addressed in your responses or your website. If I'm wrong, please show me where.
With regards to the multiverse, there are many different models, some are philosophical and some are based on actual physics. They all aim to explain reality as simply as possible. They could be considered plausible (but as yet unproven). The plausibility of some of these ideas are easily as independently supported as any conception of God is. Some of them can even be empirically tested.
 
I don't know if I can recommend these books, as I haven't read them myself yet. So take them or leave them I guess, but they are generally considered to be pretty good works of philosophy and they are on my reading list.
For those saddened by the message in this video:
I have found the notion of "Power With" - as opposed to Power Over to be a refreshing principle.
If you dig this, you'll like:
Edit: Fixed formatting.
https://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Scriptures-Peter-H-Gilmore/dp/0976403595