(Part 2) Best religious history books according to redditors
We found 1,045 Reddit comments discussing the best religious history books. We ranked the 307 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.
>The course, called “Law and Government: An Introductory Study Course,” includes 28 hours of audio and visual lectures given by Moore and others, as well as a study guide. The course is available for purchase on Amazon, where “Chief Justice Roy Moore” is listed as a co-author alongside Doug Phillips, Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft, and Dr. Paul Jehle.
Only $29.87 on Amazon, complete with one review about someone forcing their poor daughter to use the course.
>The curriculum was a product of Vision Forum, a now-defunct Texas-based evangelical organization headed by Doug Phillips, which taught “Biblical patriarchy”, a theology that prescribes strict, unequal gender roles for men and women. According a statement on the Vision Forum’s website, “Egalitarian feminism is a false ideology that has bred false doctrine in the church and seduced many believers.”
Uh, huh... and why is Vision Forum defunct now?
>Vision Forum closed in 2013 after Phillips resigned, having admitted to a “lengthy” and “inappropriately romantic and affectionate” relationship with a woman who was not his wife. Shortly thereafter, that woman, Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, sued Phillips and Vision Forum, detailing an emotionally, psychologically, and sexually abusive relationship that started when she was just 15 years old.
Yeah, sounds about right. Roy Moore and his crew are straight out of a William Faulkner novel.
Law and Government: An Introductory Study Course
Look for it in Amazon, he's down as a Co author
Edit: For the [lazy] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/193746007X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511999257&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Law+and+Government%3A+An+Introductory+Study+Course&dpPl=1&dpID=418QQCQwhcL&ref=plSrch#byline_secondary_view_div_1511999268567)
> ... the Byzantine Empire preserved the knowledge of the Roman Empire...
Claim accepted for discussion.
> thus Christains didn't cause science to stagnate.
Does not necessarily follow from above claim, nor from presented argument.
At best one can conclude - Christianity, and Christians, grudgingly advanced scientific knowledge through a filter of theological apologetics with up to outright rejection if the natural philosophy/scientific knowledge was counter to Christian tenets or traditions. And much scientific knowledge was developed in historically Christian countries/societies in spite of Christianity. However, Christianity did play a support role in scientific knowledge as the Church was, through political and economic control of the various countries/societies, as the Church was an accumulator of wealth that allowed spending (because they were the only institution that had sufficient wealth) on abstracts like natural philosophy/scientific knowledge development.
Care to learn more where the Church/Christianity retarded scientific knowledge accumulation/dissemination?
I mean, the thing exists, and the article has audio excerpts.
I get that the source is going to put some people off and I don't know of any "better" source atm, but honestly if they're going to refuse to believe something this easy to research just because of the source, they're probably going to refuse regardless of which source you give them.
For quantitative analysis of American Christianity, see Stark and Finke, The Churching of America.
For narrative history of the rise of contemporary evangelicalism as a right-wing political entity, see Darren Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt; and Daniel Williams, God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right.
On how Christians dealt with the issue of slavery, see Mark Noll, The Civil War as Theological Crisis.
But to give my opinion (studied this in grad school), no, that's horseshit. He's just making up something that allows him to reduce cognitive dissonance.
Scott Atran's work is a good place to start, I'd recommend [Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists] (http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Religion-Brotherhood-Terrorists/dp/0061344915). He's spent years with the very groups he writes about and earned their trusts. He's very good.
If you want a quicker read, here is a good [overview] (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10683169808401747) of the situation and here is a good [self observation] (http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=randy_borum&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dpsychopathy%2Bterrorism%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C10%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22psychopathy%20terrorism%22) of the research itself.
As a Catholic, I can assure you Catholics ARE Christians. Mel Gibson is a Catholic... sort of. He's a Sedevacantist.
Man, call yourself a Christian! I would also recommend looking into the Roman Catholic faith or the Eastern Orthdox faith (we're the OG Christians, lol).
Yes, get a Bible, but DON'T read it cover-to-cover. Once you get to Leviticus, you'll be like, "What the actual f--- is going ON here?" Start with the New Testament, specifically one of the Gospels. I personally love the Gospel of Luke because of how it portrays Mary, but the Gospel of John is quite good, too. It's very symbolic and is perhaps the one you could study the deepest.
if you're finding it hard to understand some of the New Testament of the Bible (the part with Jesus, the letters of Paul, and the Book of Revelation,) I would recommend buying the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. It's an actual, readable Bible that contains commentary throughout. The version I linked is only for the New Testament. The Old Testament analysis is still being compiled,
but it's almost done.Also, listen to Scott Hahn's podcast where he breaks down various sections of the Bible.
As for reading materials outside the Bible, I can highly recommend Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, and Chesterton's other work The Everlasting Man.
Oh yeah, PRAY! Just have a conversation with God! Talk to him about anything you want! Pray to God, ask the Blessed Mother for intercession, or any of the saints
If you're confused about the various denominations of Christianity, Here's a basic flow chart.
Here's the Nicene Creed, which is a mash-up of what (most) Christians believe
Also, I highly recommend the Podcast Pints with Aquians! It's an analysis of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, who's life mission was to combine faith with human reason and prove that it was not unreasonable to believe in God, but perhaps it is unreasonable to not believe in God.
I, along with everyone on this sub, will be praying for you! Good luck on your faith journey!
> You answered my question with three spokes comprising a wheel that is one
> non-answer, because you could not provide any material outside of reddit the
> philosophy community, that details Harris' faults as a philosopher. This is
> obviously of monumental significance.
It's not obviously significant, and on the contrary I've given an argument
supporting its insignificance, whereas the only thing supporting its
significance is your say-so.
That being said, there are plenty of criticisms of Harris's work that have been
published outside of Reddit. For example:
criticism that Atran levied in his
book,
Talking to the Enemy,
but that isn't freely available online.)
>I'm not attacking anyone.
Anyone who reads this thread can see the fact of the matter.
> I'm telling you it's true, because I've seen it first hand, many times.
The claim in contention is that /r/askphilosophy bans discussion of Sam Harris.
But here are some examples of cases where /r/askphilosophy has permitted
discussion of Sam Harris:
Damn right.
It's a bit of a long read, but anyone interested in how Enlightenment ideas only make sense in the context of Europe's Christian roots should read this book by Larry "Based" Siedentop.
You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?
It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:
Colin Howson – Objecting to God
George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God
Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods
Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God
Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science
J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism
J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt
Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism
Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God
Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God
Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism
Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion
Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil
[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)
Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted
Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus
Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?
Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels
John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary
John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Karen Armstrong – A History of God
Mark Smith – The Early History of God
Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?
Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?
Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus
The book God's Own Party suggests that it started with the identification of Communism as the ultimate enemy of Christianity. At some point, it got into a self-reinforcing spiral, where if some is good, more is better.
Most of the bylines at Sojourners show you what churches those authors make their homes in.
Galileo had a theory about the movement of the planets. He argued for his theory, the church scientists at the time said that if his theory were true, we'd be able to see parallax, but the instruments were not good enough for it. They also pointed out that if it were true, we'd have to reinterpret certain lines of scripture.
Then Galileo began arguing that Scripture showed his theory was true, and the church told him not to do that.
>Following this up, the Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions (a Title which the existence of alone makes me proud of my religion) Cardinal Robert Bellarmine told Galileo it was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis, and if there were “real proof” that the earth circles around the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary…” Basically, until you have proof, stop trying to interpret Scripture. Galileo ignored this, continued campaigning, and was then brought to the Inquisition, and put under house-arrest, where he died a mass-going, daily-prayer Catholic.
More details can be found here or here.
The unfortunately-titled book, Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, is a pretty direct refutation of some of the New Atheist tropes.
For a somewhat more difficult read, his latest book, The Experience of God, takes on some of the more metaphysical misunderstandings that New Atheists (and many theists) make about what God actually is.
For a much easier and shorter summary, in a sense, of The Experience of God, take a look at DBH's article in First Things, God, Gods, and Fairies which covers similar ground in a much more introductory way (and has the benefit of being freely available).
I think this is the tragedy of our times. Instead of arguing about the solutions from an ideological view point, we argue about the science. Chris Mooney, at the Washington Post, wrote an interesting book about the subject that came out in 2005, The Republican War on Science. It is well worth reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762
And this even goes further back as you can see if you listen to Erik Conway's lecture on the "Merchants of Doubt: How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV6A4CZkOXg&t=186s
> Can we reasonably expect a united front from such a tenuously connected movement?
Sean Faircloth is doing his darndest to make this a reality; you may be interested in his book Attack of the Theocrats, wherein he articulates a political plan. Given the herd-of-cats mentality of atheists, I have no idea if this will succeed. One can hope but I'm not betting on it.
There are people here who like what I write, and will tend to be rallied into a bit of positive action, which may be limited to Reddit, or change their behavior in public - I have little way of knowing. But I'm not really trying to be a demagogue here. I'm just fighting back against those people who, for whatever reasons, support the religious notion that atheists should STFU and be respectful of religions and their proponents.
I'm not asking people to be disrespectful or to troll their FB friends. I am, however, asking for respect for my (and our) freedom of speech, and to interact with the religious on our terms. I find that those people swinging the "respect" club around are rarely willing to grant it themselves.
If you're genuinely interested, I recommend either The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels. Or if you want something a little less dry and academic, then check out A History of the Devil by Gerald Messadie.
But briefly, I would say that the "Christian cults got the notion that he's the 'enemy of God'" through the New Testament. 2 Corinthians 11 and Mark 3:25 are two quick examples of this.
For me I'm going to go a bit old school. First "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis, which argues for a sort of 'Universal Truth'. I thought it was endlessly fascinating, and it's really an easy, short read. (The audio book was only an few hours long). There's also Lewis's "Mere Christianity" which is once again easy and short. In it he sort of starts with a shortened version of the argument found in Abolition, and from there discusses why Christianity itself works as the 'Universal Truth'.
If your looking for something thicker, I would suggest G. K. Chesterton's "Heretics", which blasts away the philosophy of his contemporaries (Which is still applicable today), "Orthodoxy" which discusses his own conversion and his own search for truth, and "The Everlasting Man" which discusses the history of mankind and Christianity's role in it. (This was also the book that converted Lewis' intellect).
Chesterton is not necessarily a difficult read because of lengthy words, or because he references something no longer fashionable, but because of his ideas. I like to think I can understand things fairly well, but I had to pause often to go over a phrase, or to really think about a thought he presented. But both authors are very enjoyable.
The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong. I'm a strong atheist, but I enjoy hearing her talk. I doubt she'll convince you, but at least she won't fill you with a murderous rage and you'll bea able to finish the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307269183/ref=pd_nr_b_13?ie=UTF8&s=books
The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels and A History of the Devil by Gerald Messadié are both excellent books on the subject. As you may have guessed the Pagels book concentrates on the Judeo-Christian history where the Messadié book covers a wider assortment of religions. He can be a little self-satisfied and smug in parts, but if you can overlook that the material and his writing are excellent. Given Pagels academic background her book is predictably more objective, but not at all dry and very readable. I highly recommend both (and BTW if I lent you my copy of either could you please return? TIA).
Those guys are horrible at history. I would recommend going to /r/badhistory for rebuttals, in the meantime I found some books that I think can really help out debunking this myth.
Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction
Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion
When Science and Christianity Meet
The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution
The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450
The Savior of Science
For the Glory of God
The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science
The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo
Yes this is a long list but that's because it's studied so often ;). I hope this helps.
That's an excellent argument there sparky.
Bush administrations' attacks on the integrity of science information" listing examples that include some of those mentioned by Oreskes and "undercutting the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, and stacking agencies and advisory committees with unqualified ideologues." Stebbins credits the book with providing context by detailing the tactics employed by "conservative Republicans" and establishing the roots of these undercutting techniques with examples from the last 40 years.
The Republican War on science Read the book, follow up the citations and educate yourself.
Maybe this will help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC)
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-MnE5T_0RbMC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=gave+the+Jews+permission+to+return+to+Yehud+province+and+to+rebuild+the
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hwExATCqwvwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Yahwism+after+the+exile&source=bl&ots=6cZeYs-x81&sig=HZUo4o__HEHM-lQRPR_V0qbnlXc&hl=en&ei=PF0fTPflNsS3cd2yveUM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1zi2i_C1aNkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Judah+and+the+Judeans+in+the+Persian+period&source=bl&ots=D7Qs2W9sU8&sig=GMNEhjkzVF1tnXyuvX6osqtdhLU&hl=en&ei=moIUTOjKJoLJcf-3-JoM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Please note that I have not read any of the actual books I linked, so I can't say definitively that they have what you are looking for.
I'd also like to add that JWFacts, though not acceptable to your family, has an extensive article written about the claims of the WT (and Chuckie Russel's calculations) for the 607 BCE date. In that article are several citations for source material. I'll list a few of them here:
Raymond Philip Dougherty's Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Yale University Press, page 10
The Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, page 274
The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl O. Jonsson
And, as an added bonus for your purchase of this comment for the low, low price of 3 easy installment payments of $19.99 US (no refunds), I'll throw in some extra source links just because I like you and your request for historical information.
http://www.607v587.com/
http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/
The problem that you're going to face in trying to prove the whole 607 BCE vs. the actual 587 BCE date is that most historical authors take it as a matter of fact that 587 BCE is the actual date due to mountains of historical evidence (tablets, stelae, tax documents, chronicles, etc.) The only people who seem to think that 607 BCE is the actual date for the fall of Jerusalem are Jehovah's Witnesses (and a few Millerite leftovers from the end of the 1870's). Unfortunately, as is common for Watchtower and it's followers, when they are presented with the reams of actual historical records that support real history they stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!" because, as a good JW should know, when the facts don't support their suppositions then it's DEMONS and SATAN manipulating the data.
In other words, if you're looking for actual facts to sway your family's opinions, it's not likely to happen. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try... just be aware of the likely outcome so you aren't disappointed too much. Many (perhaps most?) people decide on what they believe for largely emotional reasons. This means that data and facts alone are often not enough to sway them. For proof, look at global climate change deniers, creationists, and all the other swirling pools of ignorant humanity who refuse to believe science when the evidence is laid before them (I'm looking at you, Senator Ted Cruz, you jackassed idiot.)
I suggest two books by Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith. Gleanings which is short selections from his writings and the Hidden Words Hidden Words .
For an overall view of teachings and history, there is Baha'u'llah and the New Era
Agree.
More comments for the OP:
Basically, the OP is in a country with religion receding in the public space, and the US is a country with religion growing in the public space. What works in one, doesn't necessarily work in the other.
Remember, one of the houses of legislature in one of our states literally passed a bill this week that says if your religion says someone else is bad, it's fine for you to bully them, but everyone else needs to be nice! Luckily, it seems after the huge outcry from the rest of us, that version is unlikely to be signed into law, and will be modified to remove the exemption.
If you want to know what it's like over here, I recommend reading The Anointed (and I've heard good things about Attack of the Theocrats but haven't read it yet).
I appreciate your perspective, and we hope to be in a place where that sort of strategy is possible in 10 years or so. Even then, it will still take all kinds.
How about the amazon page that lists "Chief Justice Roy Moore" as an author?
The Kitab-I-Aqdas means The Most Holy Book, but I don't think it's fair to equate it with being the Baha'i Bible or Qur'an. It is one of literally hundreds of books and tablets which comprise the Writings of Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, all of which are sacred, all of which are equivalent in importance to the Bible for Christians/Qur'an for Muslims. It's also not the best reading for someone completely new to the Faith, as it is speaking to a Baha'i audience who is asking for laws, some of which might not be understood out of context.
On top of that, the Baha'i Faith has the Writings of the Bab (the Prophet-Founder of the Bab'i Faith, Predecessor to the Baha'i Faith) and 'Abdu'l-Baha (son of Baha'u'llah, authorized interpreter of the Writings of Baha'u'llah) which are given nearly equivalent weight. That brings the total volume of sacred Writings of the Baha'is to several orders of magnitude greater than that of most any other world religion. It can be difficult to know where to start, and overwhelming when someone heaps book after book after book upon you. We're not even getting into Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice yet.
God Speaks Again by Kenneth Bowers is a great starting point for someone who knows nothing.
Baha'u'llah and the New Era by J.E.Esslemont was the starting point for decades before this.
The Hidden Words by Baha'u'llah is my choice for a first read of the Holy Writings.
The Kitab-I-Iqan/Book of Certitude by Baha'u'llah is much heavier reading, but is the core of Baha'i Theology, if you want to dive into the deep end.
Thief in the Night by William Sears is my starting point for people who are intimately familiar with Christianity and the Bible.
My advice is to start with only one book, then move to others. Have fun!
Edited for grammar
What is your background and what are you trying to learn?
The most essential spiritual teachings are enshrined in the beautiful little book called The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah.
If you want an introduction to the history, teachings, and community, Baha'u'llah and the New Era is a wonderful book:
https://www.amazon.com/Bahaullah-New-Era-Introduction-Bahai/dp/1931847274
I think everyone should read The Republican War on Science. It was so frigging depressing I couldn't finish the book.
God's Own Party also provides a comprehensive narrative on the rise of the Religious Right and its political influences. Its been well received in the field of American Religious history.
A History of God by Karen Armstrong would be a great start. It is pretty comprehensive/thorough and not hugely biased.
No surprise. This is from 2006 The Republican War on Science
>You'll need to think of a better ad hominem.
I addressed the position you've taken and the reasons why you see things that way. If you found that offensive, i'm sorry but that is a personal problem. Insulting you was not the point or the totality of what i said.
>And you probably think NYT is unbiased also.
Strawman
>"conservative christian right" hasn't been a boogey man since 1997
Are you serious? Have you watched any of the red debates? Its like 90% theocrats.
Since Nixon/Reagan and the merging of religion and politics the right has gone so much further right and into science and fact denial that it's ridiculous to anyone that isn't brainwashed by it, and repeatedly told to dismiss any dissenting information on any desperate and falsified grounds they can find
Id like to give you some homework.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/1118094514
The first is more about ideological factors driving the detachments from reality
The second is more about psychological factors driving those same detachments.
"Reality has a well known 'liberal bias' " - Stephen Colbert
Tim Keller has some good advice about approaching new atheists in general.
You might try some things by Alister McGrath, on Dawkins views in general or specifically on the Dawkins Delusion. There's several links here, and the correspondence with Mike Poole takes on some of the more aggressive claims down the bottom of the page. William Lane Craig makes points on who designed the designer. In fact he has quite a few videos like that which can at least be a starting point.
But really the best defence against Dawkins is simply to get to know the facts. Get a book or two on the historic relationship between science and Christianity. Get to know about Christianity and what historic Christians have actually said, and it will be harder for people to present you with strawmen. Get to know what you think first, and then you know what to defend.
Oh Morb - I was trying to give you something interesting to think about and debate, not ideas that are already fully formed. It was ideas from my head, not an article that I had read, but I didn't want to say it all myself and leave nothing for anyone else to say...
Anyway - seeing as you asked so nicely:
Here is a history of religion:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Of-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675
and here is an article for you to read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
There is plenty more out there if you want it?
A History of God by Karen Armstrong
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
A good place to start I think is reading Shamanic Voices by anthropoligist Joan Halifax. It isn't a how-to guide or anything, but gives intimate accounts of Shamanic practices throughout the world. It includes records of rituals performed by Maria Sabina that you may find especially interesting.
After that, I'd recommend Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by reliigious history professor Mircea Eliade. Its a bit thick but is very thorough in its treatment of Shamanic practices through the millennia and around the world, including descriptions of numerous techniques used for entering trance states, cosmologies, symbolism, initiations, and powers claimed by Shamans. This is an academic work, however and won't give you step by step instructions (if that is what you are looking for).
If you are looking for something a bit lighter, Supernatural by Graham Hancock is an interesting read. In it he looks at parallels between drug-induced experiences, Shamanism, fairies, and reports of extraterrestrials. If I had known that last part before I read it I probably would have skipped this book but he actually made some very interesting points that I think makes the book worth reading. Also, he relies heavily on Joan Halifax's book as a source and spends a decent amount of time discussing Maria Sabina and psilocybin usage.
The beginner how-to department is an area I'm less versed in but I've heard good things about this book and its companion. Personally I'd generally recommend getting oneself intimately familiar with current and past Shamanic practices through the academic works on the subject and then creating a personalized system - though commercial how-to guides can certainly provide some practical hints and inspiration.
It's a basic reversal of classical theism. The ironic thing is that modernity gave birth to a fundamentalist literal reading of the bible that hardly existed before (enter the demiurge, or what new atheists like to call the sky daddy or whatever). Modern fundamentalist literalists read Genesis as literal. Literal six day creation. Literal Adam and Eve, literal worldwide flood with a literal ark with literally two of all the animals. Early Christians almost exclusively read these stories as allegory intended to communicate spiritual truths.
 
Classical theism (crudely explained by me, not a philosopher but a reader of such) believes not that God is part of nature, but that nature is part of god. That all being, everything that is or will be proceeds from one infinite god. God encompasses everything and is the uncaused cause of everything. This is also a picture of God in Hinduism, and in Zoroastrianism, and much of Judaism, and there are writings to this effect in classical Islamic philosophy as well. As I said, I explain it crudely but if you want arguments made by an actual living classical theist and philosopher (who covers the question of how to define God from the different angles of all those religions) I can make some book recommendations. Warning though, he has some pretty harsh things to say about naturalism and materialism. But all of his attacks are rooted in actual logic (though he does get a bit personal at times with some of the new atheists because hey, they're not exactly nice to those they criticize). I always hesitate to recommend his books though because the arguments are difficult to follow if you're unfamiliar with certain sophisticated metaphysical disciplines it can be difficult to follow his work as some familiarity with such is assumed. But I mean if you're reading Spinoza those probably won't be a problem. The guy I am talking about definitely doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god and pretty harshly ridicules the concept. Check him out.
 
His name is David Bentley Hart. He's an eastern orthodox Christian so I know many will be biased against him from the start. But he's at least an entertaining read and he is one of the top scholars of religion (not just Christianity) out there right now. Yale recently commissioned a translation of the New Testament from him. But yeah, he also deeply studies many eastern religions in addition to Christianity and has a deep respect for them. He's not just looking confirm his beliefs. He's not looking to convince people. He has openly said he doubts and questions his beliefs constantly. He's also a Christian universalist. He's an interesting guy to read if this stuff piques your interest.
https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-David-Bentley-Hart-ebook/dp/B00E64EH0K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494054794&sr=8-1&keywords=the+experience+of+god+david+bentley+hart
Well, what questions do you have? Are you looking for holy books, general information, etc? I would be happy to help with anything you may need. I personally started with the book Baha'u'llah and the new era. It is not a holy book/text, but it covers the basics of every aspect of the faith in plain language.
Here is the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Bahaullah-New-Era-Introduction-Bahai/dp/1931847274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417447332&sr=8-1&keywords=baha%27u%27llah+and+the+new+era
And here is a link to a website that contains a free ebook version, as well as many other free ebooks:
http://www.bahaiebooks.org/ebooks-by-title
Good luck in your search, and let me know if you have any questions! I was a Christian once myself, and was aided in my search on this subreddit, and by meeting with Baha'is in my area. There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who I'm sure will be as willing to assist you as they were to assist me! :)
Eliade e omul care a adus shamanismul si ezoterismul estic in cercul filozofilor occidentali. Este puternic subestimat omul asta, ce-a facut, ce-a scris si chiar profunzimea micilor povestiri.
Asta am auzit ca-i deosebit de interesanta: http://www.amazon.com/Shamanism-Archaic-Techniques-Ecstasy-Bollingen/dp/0691119422
Well, for starters I'd check out E.E. Evans-Pritchard's Theories of Primitive Religion, which summarizes most the reasons for the modern break with Dennett's sources in classical anthropology and sociology. The only edition currently in print is pretty expensive, so it's probably best to look for a library copy.
The direction more recent scholarship points towards is a modern status quo that offers no definitive set of theories as to the origins of religion, which is perhaps part of why Dennett and co. have been so eager to revive the Victorian models.
In the meantime, Dennett is explicit in rejecting more recent historians of religion, like [Mircea Eliade][1]. I wouldn't necessarily recommend Eliade as an authoritative source on the origins of religion -- he provides some very interesting research and synthesis, but is, on the whole, too interpretive -- yet it's telling that Dennett is willing to reject a major modern theorist without offering anyone to stand in his stead.
Increasingly, serious researchers have tended towards specialization, so it's difficult to give you a list of authors that deal with the phenomenon of religion as a whole. For the history of the Christian tradition, I'd recommend [Elaine Pagels][2] and [Jaroslav Pelikan][3]. For the Judaic tradition, and particular Jewish mysticism, [Gershom Scholem][4] -- who also makes some very interesting observations on the relationship between religious experience and religious tradition in general, cf. "Religious authority and mysticism". On ancient Greek religion, I'd suggest [Karl Kerenyi][5], [Walter Burkert][7], [Martin P. Nilsson][8], and E.R. Dodds' [The Greeks and the Irrational][6]. Eliade is, on the whole, as strong an authority as you will find on the general topic of Shamanism, and his book takes us a good ways back towards he earliest forms of religion presently known.
That's a pretty good start, anyway.
I should say that there's nothing necessarily wrong with most of the modern research Dennett presents in Breaking the Spell. The problem is that, despite his protestations to the contrary, they seem to have been chosen with a particular interpretive paradigm in mind.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Pelikan
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_Scholem
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ker%C3%A9nyi
[6]: http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-Irrational-Sather-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520242300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249408287&sr=8-1
[7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Burkert
[8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P._Nilsson
It is, and a great one at that. by JK Sheindling. It starts from the author's initial force-fed perception that Islam is the "religion of peace", and follows the journey to the realization of the true face of Islam.
Indeed. When Harris writes:
> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.
any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?
Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.
Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.
What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.
What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.
There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.
Most shamanic cultures believe that the shaman has the power to fly into the upper world and converse with spirits there. Siberian shamanism has been dated back as early as 30,000 years, certainly much longer than the Icarus myth.
Source
The Case for God and The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong are both good. The God Delusion is a simple breakdown and explanation of most major religious claims. Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World by the Dalai Llama is an interesting book on ethics. The Koran: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Cook is 150 funny and insightful pages on Islam. Under the Banner of Heaven is a shocking and fascinating account of fundamentalist Mormonism. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan discusses religion, and Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot are my secular versions of holy books. And of course given the occasion, I can't leave out God is Not Great.
I recommend avoiding authors like Lee Strobel and Deepak Chopra. Both are essentially liars for their causes, either inventing evidence, or deliberately being incredibly misleading in how they use terms. Popularity in those cases definitely doesn't indicate quality.
There is a fantastic book about car dealerships titled Don't Get Taken Every Time. I highly recommend you read it then go try and buy a new car. It is funny to watch them try some of the same crap as described in the book.
Im just now starting to read Mercia Eliade, Idk if this book covers types of shamanism. (I’m highly certain it will) I just bought this book yesterday.
Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691119422?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
If you really want to learn about car buying and enjoy a good book Don't get taken every time
Fantastic information and very entertaining book by an insider in the car industry. Written a while ago but everything still applies. Can't recommend this enough!
Yahweh was once one of many gods within the Hebrew pantheon, which included gods like Asherah and Ba'al. At some point, the relevant books of Old Testament went through a period of editing by Yahwists who were intent on cementing their particular god's supremacy. Yahweh absorbed some of the other gods in the bible, which explains why he seems to have multiple conflicting personalities at times, and explains why he was jealous. The first commandment is a good example of this jealousy.
Karen Armstrong's book A history of God is a really interesting read, for those interested. You can find a decent video/animation summary of parts of the book here.
I can speak from personal experiance. The best way I can offer to push someone from theism, specifically evangelical christianity, to atheism is to show them that what they've been told about God is (mostly) bull shit.
For this, I offer: The Case for God by Karen Armstrong.
Armstrong outlines all understandings of God for all of history. As such, it can be really dense, but it really gives you an exhaustive understanding of how people have understood God. She also does it by presenting the facts as she has studied them, and offers very little of her own opinion. That is, she is arguing for understanding the historical character of God, not that you should necessarily believe in Him. She's actually quite critical of the modern, mainstream, conceptions of God--especially biblical literalism and evangelical protestants.
Her discussion should change the way you perceive God, which may allow you to have more objectivity towards your beliefs. I read this through my de-conversion and I think it helped me more than any other book; here was a woman arguing for God telling me that most of what I believed was a new fad in Christian beliefs rather than a multi-century established doctrine.
Reading an atheist book is all well and good, but you know what they're going to say. This book will argue that even in the context of God existing, what you believe about him is bull shit.
My apologies, I assumed you may have been familiar with Rene Decartes.
I'll explain it this way: How do you know something? How do you know something as simple as your keyboard is in front of you?
You can see it and you can feel it, right?
But that doesn't actually prove the keyboard really exists. That just proves your eyes see a keyboard and your hands feel a keyboard.
And really, you can't even 100% sure of that. You know from experience that your senses aren't 100% trustworthy. They can be confused by psychological tricks or medical conditions can cause senses to report things that aren't really there. As mentioned before, optical illusions, phantom pain, schizophrenia, magic tricks, desert mirages, LSD, mushrooms, etc are all known cases where your eye sight, hearing, or sense of touch report things that aren't there.
So really, all you can say for 100% certainity is that you think your senses are reporting there's a keyboard in front of you.
While four hundred years too early, Decartes would have used The Matrix as a great example. Relying solely on your senses, there is no difference between your reality now and if you were hooked up to The Matrix. Everything you saw, heard, or touched would prove that the Matrix was reality- yet it wasn't.
Likewise, while it is incredibly unlikely and not at all practical, there is still a tiny tiny chance that you just may be inside a giant virtual reality world.
> When asked for evidence,
When asked for evidence I listed several resources for you. I'll explicitly bullet them for you this time :-)
> That's because there is no actual evidence for God, which brings me back to it not being a knowable thing.
In the sense you're using "knowing" and "evidence", I would say there is plenty.
I'm an atheist, and have more books about atheism than about any particular theistic belief.
That said, I'd strongly recommend--and would appreciate Christian Redditors' takes on--The Case For God by Karen Armstrong. I'm afraid it's been a while since I read it, but I recall thinking that, at least from the atheist perspective, this book presents a fairly nuanced look at god and religion throughout history. Armstrong advocates (?) for a return to a gnostic tradition of belief and contemplating God through silence. It only addresses the New Atheist argument briefly, at the very end. Interesting stuff.
EDIT: I failed to mention the following. As a counterpoint to Armstrong's "all paths" interpretation of belief I'd recommend God is Not One by Stephen Prothero. This is one of my favorite books I've read about religions. The book is strictly a comparative study of major religions and does not address the question of whether or not God exists, so it may not fit into your pro/contra reading list. Still, a fascinating book and highly illuminating.
My sister bought online through (I think) carsdirect.com. She got a better price than she could get from local dealers. (She tried. She wanted to buy local, but none of the dealers would match the price.)
Don't Get Taken Every Time by Remar Sutton (an older edition) helped me when I bought a new car in 1996.
I actually did my research online and most of my shopping on Sunday when the dealerships were closed. By the time I talked to a salesman, I already knew what I wanted, what I was willing to pay, and what they had in stock.
In general, used is probably better. In my case, the banks would not finance a used car for me but were happy to finance a new one.
Here is the desktop version of OP's link
The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson
A History of the Devil https://www.amazon.com/dp/156836198X/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_jhzdBb1F0DDR2
>humans just made this up and chose what to include and what not to include.
Humans made what up?
>why would a being so powerful choose such a misunderstood way to communicate if his goal was to save us?
This question is making some assumptions:
Number 1 is false to any classical monotheist. Here's a blogpost I wrote about the "nature" of God and evil. Here's a reddit comment I wrote which also touches this. I only link these because I don't have the time to figure out how to write it out again in my currently allotted time (work soon). However, I will suggest two books for you that are better written and that heavily influence(d) my thoughts: God Without Being: Hors-Texte, Second Edition (Religion and Postmodernism) 2nd Edition by Jean-Luc Marion. He is a French Philosopher. The second book is The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart. He is an American Eastern Orthodox Theologian. The second of the two books will be a little bit easier to understand as it's written for a wide audience.
Number 2 could be false, but I personally think it's true. So, I'm going to assume this with you.
Number 3 is wrong in the sense of the goal being to save us from eternal damnation. Read my comment (or blogpost) to get a better understanding. Long story short, to quote St. Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become God".
But, to answer your question: Humans live and participate in different contexts. Whether it be historical, societal or even religious contexts. That is burden of our "imperfect" nature. Based on that alone, we will of course misunderstand things. I can say more, but I'm running out of time.
>my point was that if we open up the floor to interpretation...just everyone making up their idea of what is right.
Interpretations aren't just made up. To interpret properly is to situate and figure the given materials in their proper contexts and stories. This happens from science to art. I suggest reading up on Hermeneutics. I could suggest a couples books (sorry, I'm just bad at explaining things in a quick easy-to-digest way. Especially when it comes to topics our minds literally can't comprehend). New Testament People God V1: Christian Origins And The Question Of God by NT Wright which sets up what he calls a "critical realism" approach to scripture. Phenomenologies of Scripture, which is a collection of articles detailing how to approach the bible and related topics as they "give themselves". I'm currently reading both. The first is a more historical-critical and literary approach to the bible and the second is more a philosophical approach. Both really good so far.
>but I suppose in that case I reject both your idea of God and the existence of God.
You cannot deny "the existence" of God because that's an absurd statement. God is not a thing or even "highest power" that exists in some "realm" called "the supernatural". If that were the case, "Existence", as such, would be ontologically prior to "God" which doesn't make sense. The Divine/God/Brahman/whatever is that which provides "Existence" to "exist". God does not exist. Once again, I highly suggest reading my blogpost (I don't have ads or anything so I won't get paid) because it's better articulated. Better yet, read the book I mentioned by David Bentley Hart. I can send you (I think) a PDF if you want. I've provided a short reading and long reading. If you want a video instead, I can probably find one!
Sorry about all the books I recommend. Reddit is not a place I can expound on philosophical ideas, especially when we both have different working assumptions that we need to clear. That's why I'm focusing on challenging your viewpoints on certain things because we just fundamentally disagree. We can't discuss/debate things without first agreeing on something.
Also, I've enjoyed engaging with you. You seem open-minded enough and that's a good thing. So, thanks.
David Bentley Hart is unparalleled in terms of knowledge, wit, imagination, eloquence, and is perhaps the greatest living Christian thinker today.
He just put out a translation of the New Testament through Yale University Press which is incredible.
His newest book is called The Experience of God and it is mind-boggling.
Atheist Delusions absolutely eviscerates pop atheism.
His theological magum opus, The Beauty of the Infinite has been called the greatest work of theology so far this century.
The Doors of the Sea is required reading for anyone who struggles with the issue of evil.
His work is sublime.
Not a graphic novel, but I enjoyed reading A History of the Devil some years ago. It tries to cover the concepts of the devil, evil and hell in different cultures and religions and how each one dealt with them. It's by no means in-depth (considering even cultures that have lasted millennia get a couple dozen pages at best), but is a very fun comparative view on these topics all over the world.
edit: as for actual comics, people have already mentioned Sandman and Hellboy, those would be my recommendations as well.
Give Michael Harner a try, followed by Mircea Eliade.
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Government-Introductory-Study-Course/dp/193746007X
Too much for her?
http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Theocrats-Religious-Right-Harms/dp/0984493247
Downvote if you'd like, but here you go. Good reading: https://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Religion-Brotherhood-Terrorists/dp/0061344915
Read Don't get taken every time
The 'better' interpretation is found in historical books and journals, but since I'm going to have to do your work for you:
You could start with Clarke's [Civilisation series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilisation_(TV_series), James Hannan wrote a reasonable book outlining the course of science over the mediaeval period, and you should read Ronald Numbers to finish off an overview.
But go ahead and downvote, because as everyone knows, uninformed comments are far more popular than facts.
>The "professional philosophers" who use incorrect definitions, on the other hand, I couldn't care less about.
First off, let me be clear again, you're the one using the incorrect definition. We can know that because we have rational minds that can understand rational arguments. And luckily, we have redditors that are very proficient at providing just the rational arguments we need to show that weak atheism is not intellectually viable.
>. If you could be so kind as to point out some of these "professional philosophers" - with sources - so I could dismiss anything they have to say on the matter, it would save me a lot of time.
First, I do so love the overconfidence. You've clearly proven my point there. You're completely unaware of even who these philosophers let alone what they argue, yet you're absolutely convinced of your ability to dismantle whatever it is they have to say.
The question is why would you want to? Clearly you're attached to the label atheist, and you're here so you at least like the impression of being intellectual, so why would you be interested in dismissing the arguments of professional atheists philosophers out of hand? Surely you'd want to at least see what they had to say. In fact, I'd say that you'd want to study and really understand their arguments. But maybe that's just me projecting what I want onto you.
Just in case, here are a few atheist philosophers of religion you ought to be reading up on.
>And just because "professional atheist philosophers" make arguments that gods don't exist, that doesn't change the definitions.
Read all of those links (remember to check your local library or your local university's library!) and you'll see that atheists who aren't a part of the cacophony of the unsophisticated group think do not argue for weak atheism. They do not simply argue against the theist's argument and, convinced they have sufficiently undermined that argument, declared themselves free of any belief. They believe there is probably no God and they argue there is probably no God.
You take pride in your belligerence, but it's a shame that belligerence comes from a position of ignorance. I worry about the status of atheism not because I think the theist arguments have won but because people like you are so completely ignorant of the topic that they can't even get straight what atheism even is, what arguments actually support it, and what obstacles there are for atheists to overcome. And yet you feel justified in spewing your nonsense in the most jackass way you can muster.
A couple of books by James Penton to consider:
Apocalypse Delayed -
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Delayed-Story-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/0802079733
JWs and the Third Reich -
https://www.amazon.com/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Third-Reich-Persecution/dp/0802089275
And Carl Olaf Jonsson:
Sign of the Last Days-When? -
https://www.amazon.com/Sign-Last-Days-When-Jonsson/dp/0914675095
The Gentile Times Reconsidered -
https://www.amazon.com/Gentile-Times-Reconsidered-Carl-Jonsson/dp/0914675079
> His physics have been proven pretty wrong as well
Would you be able to show me what specifically has been disproved in Aristotle's physics/metaphysics that Aquinas specifically uses in his Five Ways?
Aquinas' Five Ways: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
> [Aristotle's cosmology] was the reason that Galilleo was condemned
This is a myth. In the case of Gaileo, the Inquisition went after him because he used heliocentrism to interpret Scripture, which the Church was not happy about. Moreover, when the Pope asked him to write a book about the strengths and weaknesses of the Copernican Heliocentric model vs the Ptolmeaic Geocentric model (The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems), he did so in a way that hugely downplayed the flaws of the Copernican model, and he quoted the Pope in a character called "Simplicio", which means "The Idiot". These reasons led the Inquisition to sentence Galileo to house arrest in his Florentine villa (roughly 2500 square feet / 230 square metres in size).
Sources:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Galileos-ideas-censored/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3a9sdq/the_long_awaited_galileo_challenge/
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674033272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252071550&sr=8-1
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/the-myth-of-galileo-a-story-with-a-mostly-valuable-lesson-for-today/
http://www.scientus.org/Galileo-Battle-for-Heavens.html
I don't know but I would say avoid this one because that's the one I have and I really dislike the way the words are laid out on the page.
>Their conversion just proves that despite the gift of intelligence, one is nevertheless susceptible to irrational beliefs.
How is it irrational when these people gave rational reasons for their belief in the truth of the Christian religion? Check out any of their books/writings. Are Edward Feser's The Last Supersition and 5 Proofs irrational? What about Chesterton's The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy? What about Alaisdair Macintyre's After Virtue?
>You said he wasn't a Christian yet. Did he accept Jesus as his savior? That is the requirement for salvation from what I know.
Looks like your only idea of Christianity is Protestant Christianity (in fairness to Protestant denominations though, many of them are nuanced in their views on this issue and would disagree with the assertion that only Christians are saved). The Catholic Church which was founded by Christ himself disagrees, and so do the other apostolic orthodox churches (Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox).
>What other ways would this be?
I quoted official teaching, didn't you read it?
>You know this how?
Because they themselves shared their reasons for converting/believing in the truth of Christianity (for non-converts) in their talks, books and writings? How else dude?
>What's this evidence that others converted over?
A lot -- philosophical, scientific and historical evidence.
Philosophical: The traditional cosmological arguments (given by the great thinkers of the Western philosophical tradition -- Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Aquinas, Leibiniz, etc) for the God of classical theism, the argument from consciousness, the moral argument and others.
Science: The Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the argument from biological teleology, and the argument from the laws of nature.
History: the argument from Jesus' miracles, the historical case for the Resurrection, Catholic miracles, and the religious experiences and mystical gifts of countless Christian saints. I lay this out these arguments briefly in this post.
>Because of this outright lie and string of labels thrown at me:
Nah, my assessment is self evident from what you wrote. A silly absolute statement like "no Christian ever believed in his faith on the basis of reason and evidence" is extremely telling...especially given that you doubled down on your erroneous views after being given abundantly clear evidence.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis-ebook/dp/B00ZE45LUG
Good book.
Missions have done NOTHING to further AIDS research, what kind of crack are you smoking????? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2969142/
The only thing you are going to do with this "genocide in the Middle East" is scream about the persecutions of Christians. And then you are going to go to church and your pastor is going to scream about christian persecution. But hes only gonna spend 15 minutes talking about the middle east before he gets onto the topics of how Liberal education is turning kids away from religion and that Colleges and Democrats are trying to undermine the christian foundations of this nation. Christianity in America has SEVERELY deluded people to the the machinations of politics and how those machinations effect international political dynamics. WE (as in YOU AND ME) are genociding Christians in the middle east with our silent support of the war in Afghanistan and whatever the hell we did in Iraq and our support of Saudi Arabia. And then our government is trying to prevent these refugees from even coming here. Christians in america are addicted to the cycle of persecution, we need to stop going to church, and start making America and the world a better place.
read: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0020964313505984b?journalCode=intc or https://www.amazon.com/Roads-Dominion-Right-Wing-Movements-Political/dp/0898628644 or https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Own-Party-Making-Christian/dp/0199929068
Matthew 25:31 is the only Bible verse that matters, the rest is just a waste of paper.
> Science. Religion has been fighting it for thousands of years.
I'm afraid that to even assume that science and religion existed as distinct concepts or endeavours thousands of years ago is a bit naïve, and this idea that they are eternally opposed is a very simplistic view that reflects the biases of anticlerical 19th Century historians more than the actual facts—it's only really been defended by people with a grudge against religion since a reappraisal of the subject in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (and especially since the reappraisal by James Moore in The Post-Darwinian Controversies). Here are a few books that could help you develop a richer understanding of the historical relationship between science and religion.
These would probably be illuminating reading as well.
> Here is just another surrender by a guy at the top of the money chain.
No one interested in the subject should be under the impression that what the Pope has said is anything new. Eminent Catholic theologians like John Henry Newman found Darwin's theory of natural selection consistent with Christianity when it was published, and Pope Pius XII very famously affirmed that there was no intrinsic conflict between them in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis. As for the Big Bang, it is downright foolish to characterise the Church as "surrendering" to a theory that was formulated by a Catholic priest in the first place.
Censuset nuk jane te sakta, por mendimi yt qenka i sakte? Mire hajt po e pranojme.
Po Kosova? SIpas definicionit tend eshte shtet mysliman.Atehere pse votojne femrat? Pse marrin patenta? Pse nuk veshin ferxhe me detyrim nga shteti? Pse dalin te pashoqeruara? Pse zgjodhen femer presidente? Pse nuk vrasin me gur ateistet?
> Ku i gjen këto shifra e fesë njëherë? Se po më çudit.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fundamentalism-Confronting-Religious-Globalization/dp/0812978307
> Që të krishterët praktikojnë FGM nuk do të thotë që s'ka lidhje me fenë myslimane.
Pike e zeze. Edhe kur te krishteret e praktikojne e kane fajin myslimanet.
Si mendon pra? A eshte FGM problem katolik? A eshte persekutimi i homoseksualeve problem katolik? Apo problem afrikan? A eshte perdhunimi i femrave ne grup problem hindu?
> Indonezia është afrikane?
?
jo
> Censuset nuk jane te sakta, por mendimi yt qenka i sakte? Mire hajt po e pranojme.
>
Këshilli i Evropës jam unë? Se këtë po thua.
> Po Kosova? SIpas definicionit tend eshte shtet mysliman.Atehere pse votojne femrat? Pse marrin patenta? Pse nuk veshin ferxhe me detyrim nga shteti? Pse dalin te pashoqeruara? Pse zgjodhen femer presidente? Pse nuk vrasin me gur ateistet?
Ta thashë shpjegimin më sipër. Kosova është shtet laik dhe feja ka pak ndikim falë komunizmit dhe nacionalizmit laik shqiptar.
> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fundamentalism-Confronting-Religious-Globalization/dp/0812978307
Në qoftë Reza thotë se Eritrea është katolike atëhere ia fut kot. Unë shoh shifrat e WHO-së.
> Pike e zeze. Edhe kur te krishteret e praktikojne e kane fajin myslimanet.
>Si mendon pra? A eshte FGM problem katolik? A eshte persekutimi i homoseksualeve problem katolik? Apo problem afrikan? A eshte perdhunimi i femrave ne grup problem hindu?
Në radhë të parë, mos e përdor "katolik" në vend të "krishterë" se është e gabuar në çdo mënyrë.
FGM është problem afrikan dhe mysliman. Pra zbatohet në kultura afrikane dhe është pranuar në fenë myslimane. Ka mjaft burime që e vërtetojnë këtë gjë.
Diskriminimi ndaj LGBT është problem i krishter dhe mysliman, vetëm se bota historikisht e krishterë sot po bëhet gjithnjë e më laike.
Ky është një rezolucion për LGBT në OKB. Shikoi mirë vendet.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg/530px-LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg.png
Ti s'ke lexuar as Kuran as hadithe, si të flasësh për diçka që nuk e njeh? Sipas shkollarëve myslimanë Muhameti ka thënë se pranohet FGM dhe ai e përmend specifikisht. Tani sipas teje kjo s'paska vlerë fare?
> ? jo
Në Indonezi deri në 97% e grave kanë pësuar FGM. Në Malajzi deri në 93% e grave myslimane e kanë pësuar.
Te vendasit jo-myslimanë në këto vende është e padëgjuar kjo praktikë, ndërkohë myslimanët vendas e justifikojnë pikërisht me fenë. Para se këto vende të bëheshin myslimane prapë ishte e padëgjuar kjo praktikë.
Tani ma thuaj pak si nuk qenka problem i fesë ky.
I would strongly disagree with that.
Have you read The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonnson?
This is the most well-researched treatise that examines the fall of Jerusalem in excruciating detail, and shows how to arrive at 586/587 through archeological artefacts.
David Bentley Hart's, The Experience of God.
I cannot confirm the subtitles. The comments in the original are 50/50 half saying fake the other half saying true. Both sides claiming to speak the language. All I can say is the reviews on Amazon for the book completely agree with what this guy is saying.
Edit: The Quran is not a peaceful book!
personally i recommend this one :o)
An interesting book by Reza Aslan. Basically its what you said. Their only goal is to fight in the name of Allah. That's the goal. Not about great society, not about prosperity, not about "true Islam". Its what fringe lunatics of religious people do, and it has been existed in every other religions.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Get-Taken-Every-Time/dp/0143038885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268789307&sr=1-1
>imprisoned him and suppressed his works
Close - sentenced him to house arrest and forbid one of his books. He was technically sentenced to go to prison but they never went through with it and instead he had to stay at his house during his last years.
Get this book. I used to think I was pretty savvy at car buying, but I was wrong. This guy tells you how dealers work and what you can do about it, step by step.
>If "the masses" wanted to be willing tools of Roman rulers, then this desire stemmed from indoctrination and ignorance rather than instinct.
Even instinct is indoctrination.
>perhaps because it relied so much on overt tyranny rather than subtle manipulation via religion.
The Romans did have pagan religions that were state-reinforcing, though.
>Christianity, which was also arguably inspired by Stoic philosophy
I'd say Platonism, but, in certain ascetic senses, yes.
>Peter Gay's history of the Enlightenment as the reception of pagan values in the west
Oh, that's a quite silly claim. The Pagan gods were not even remotely humanists, and just because the Enlightenment fostered skepticism of religion, it does not follow from that that it wasn't informed by contiguous Christian values.
Your laziness is not my problem. But since you're such an ignorant fuck like the majority of reddit I'll link sources and get downvoted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
Conservative estimation is 80 million here
a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people. -- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/legacy-of-arab-islam-in-africa-john-azumah/1113871213?type=eBook
So 140 + 80 = 220
Lets go further!
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm
Here, some of the information about Africa is taken into account! Bu we haven't even begun to talk about other areas of Islamic conquest!
My 270 came form this
https://www.amazon.com/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis-ebook/dp/B00ZE45LUG
Sean Faircloth wrote a great book that details this sort of thing http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Theocrats-Religious-Right-Harms/dp/0984493247/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347115194&sr=1-1&keywords=faircloth
Here is the mobile version of your link
Meant "him"? Al'Qaeda wasn't just one man, it had several heads but people only seem to focus on one.
I'm unable to explain it correctly, but "Beyond Fundamentalism" (book), explains the whole meaning of a cosmic war (on another plane).
As part of an extreme Jihadist movement (or something of the sort), their base still lies in line with Muslim beliefs, though yes, political opinions were the head of their actions, their "cause", but their follow-through was very much based in religion.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514
https://www.amazon.com/Insane-Clown-President-Dispatches-Circus/dp/0399592466
https://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/145161666X/
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fight-Conservative-Daniel-Kurtzman/dp/140226576X
It took me less than 2 minutes to find all of these