(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best christian bibles

First of all, I appreciate you asking direct questions. An honest pursuit of Truth means really poking and prodding all of these tough topics and hearing what the Church has to say about them, so kudos. Your questions do not come off brash, at all.

I wish this thread had come out at the beginning of Lent, because the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology allowed for free access to their 12-part video series, The Bible And The Virgin Mary. It's still available to rent for $20 total, but they were opening two videos per week throughout Lent for all who signed up. Scott Hahn, who heads up the St. Paul Institute, also wrote a book some years back which parallels the content from the video series, called Hail Holy Queen. It can be had used on Amazon for between $5 and $10 (or $12, Prime shipping) and in my opinion is a must-read for anyone investigating the Marian doctrines in Scripture, coming from a Protestant background.

One last good resource - a YouTube video called The Truth About Mary In Scripture which briefly goes over the Old Testament and New Testament parallels and would be a good primer on why many of the beliefs the Catholic Church hold true about Mary weren't "pulled out of thin air."

Now, beyond providing resources, my personal response on the matter. We know from Scripture that Mary's soul magnifies the Lord (Lk 1: 46-47). We also know that the prayers of a righteous person have great power (Jas 5: 16). So, if we can make the leap to accept that Christ does not have two bodies - a heavenly and an earthly, which are separated - and has but one Body (as St. Paul notes many times) then it follows that seeking the friendship and intercession of those in heaven who are no longer mired from the effects of sin would be greatly advantageous to all of us. After all, we know that nothing unclean may enter heaven (Rev 21: 27) so those in the heavenly realm would be the epitome of those (the righteous) whose prayers will have great power, as the reference from St. James' letter attests.

As this relates to our earthly lives, we Christians go through this life looking for pastors we can trust, friends with whom we can form bonds, pray, and study the Scriptures with, in hopes that the examples of their Godly lives will bring us closer to Christ, right? As Catholics, we recognize not only that family, but a much bigger family of all the Saints in heaven who are just as eager, and infinitely more able, to help us along that path with their prayers and guidance.

How does all this relate to the Blessed Mother, and why does she receive honor that is over and above that of even the other Saints in heaven? It's precisely because of the work God did in her, and her unique relationship to each Person of the Trinity. That she is the only one of our kind who can claim to be a daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and (in a sense) the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Of all the possible ways that our Savior could have deigned to come to earth, He chose to do so in the womb of a humble Virgin.

As a personal testimony, even as a cradle Catholic, it took me a long time and a lot of study to understand the Marian dogmas and why they are true, and ultimately to fall in love with our Blessed Mother. But one doesn't fall in love with dogmas and teachings, one falls in love with persons. Prior to my engagement to my now-wife, I began offering the Rosary daily for the grace of chastity - at the time to combat a longstanding temptation toward pornography use and self-abuse associated to that. I did this after seeing a quote from Bishop Hugh Doyle - "No one can live continually in sin and continue to say the Rosary: either they will give up sin or they will give up the Rosary". Within six months, that temptation was gone entirely and, thanks be to God, has not shown any signs of returning. As a result, I was able to enter into marriage with a clear conscience regarding that sin, and be better prepared to lead my wife. We'll be married 10 months tomorrow, and I've continued that practice of praying the Rosary daily since beginning it sometime around January 2016.

Did this small miracle happen because Mary could do something that Jesus couldn't? No. I'm of the firm opinion that it's because Jesus gave me the gift of His Mother (just as He did to the Apostle John at the foot of the cross, and just as He offers to each of us) to help cut down my pride and make room for the gifts of the Holy Spirit to work in a way that I was incapable of previously. Her soul magnified the Lord for me in a way that I couldn't do on my own, even with Jesus offering grace in abundance as He always does. She held my hand and patiently led me to what He had in store for me all along.

So, after that incredibly long-winded post, my heartfelt recommendations for you:

• Keep asking questions just as you are, and pour over the best resources given to you on the topic of Mary. Be critical of them. I've included some that I feel are worthwhile earlier in my post.
  
  
• Pray to Jesus, asking Him about the role (if any) that His Mother should have in your life - something like "Lord, do you desire for me to know Your Mother? Will forming a relationship with Her magnify You, as the Scriptures say, or will it cloud my relationship with You and draw me further from You?".
  
  
• Perhaps read and reflect on Revelation 12. If you believe that "the male child brought forth to rule all nations with a rod of iron, caught up to God and His throne" (Rev 12: 5) is Jesus Christ, then it follows that the mother in this situation can (in one sense) be a depiction of Mary. Later in the chapter, it refers to "the rest of her offspring, those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus (Rev 12: 17). Do those statements reflect your purpose in this life? If so, then you, too, are a beloved son/daughter of Mary. Something to consider.
  
  Thanks for being patient during my stream of consciousness, and know that you're in my prayers. Feel free to PM with any questions, too. Peace to you.

Op, since my comment is long, I'll make it into a few parts.

1/3

.
.
.
.
.

First, I will like to thank you for resoponding to my comment, and waiting later on for my answer.

> Honestly, not a big fan of Wayne Grudem. Apart from his Systematic Theology that revitalise millennial's fervour and passion upon Calvinistic theory of salvation (man can only be saved by God's effort alone), I don't really have high regard on his other views (but probably this is coming from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective). I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.

Likewise. I’m not aware of it [Systematic Theology] being overly controversial, but Grudem himself has been controversial lately by espousing unorthodox beliefs that God the Son is eternally submissive to God the Father, making many who read his works turn away from it- ourselves included.

Onto Grudem's work:

Yes, I think there is something inherently wrong with the idea of systematic theology.

Allow me to state first that I have great respect for many of the Church’s systematic theologians. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind. That guy was a stud. Augustine, Barth-1 Erasmus, Origen, Tillich, all make my list of “dudes I respect” (hrm…no women here…sad), and all engaged in certain systematic pursuits. I think there’s a lot to be said for systematic theology, but I do have a problem with it: too often it smacks of proof-texting, ignorance of context and genre and other literary concerns, and the inability to give the other side a fair shake annoys me to no end.

Perhaps no well-reviewed work of systematic theology annoys me more than Wayne Grudem’s aptly titled Systematic Theology. Grudem goes about creating his system by the aforementioned proof-texting route without paying much attention to the context. What is laudable about his book is also what is condemnable: Grudem’s conciseness. The book is so concise, in fact, that Grudem didn’t find room to offer any serious reflection on Scripture. There is a reason that Barth had to stretch Church Dogmatics out into 13 volumes while only covering a few of the very large categories-2 — because careful theology requires careful exegesis. Of course, to criticize Grudem for this is to ignore what he’s trying to do. Grudem’s aims were accessibility — Systematic Theology prefers to live on the bookshelves of lay people rather than professional clergy with an eye toward serious theological reflection. I get that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make it less frustrating.3

So, here’s the thing. I’d rather take a cue from the greatest theologian of the 20th century (Mr. Barth), and focus on the paradox here. To me, what is most interesting and compelling about Christianity are the paradoxes. For example, Jesus Christ himself represents the most incredible paradox: God and Man in one. Serious reflection on this idea requires pages and pages and pages of thought to work out.

Another example of a paradox is systematic theology itself. Here we have a human attempting to systematize, categorize, and make easily referenced that which defies and even denies systematization. As Paul says in 1 Cor 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly…” Sure, we understand some attributes of God. We can offer some kind of mental assent to God’s infinitude and the paradoxes inherent within (e.g., love and justice | eternal and temporal | etc.). But, at the end of the day, we only have a faint impression of his fullness. The best Christian thinkers are like Monet in his later periods, stricken with cataracts that alter his perception of color — we are painting a half-blind impression of the fullness of God.

So what’s wrong with systematic theology?

Infinitude defies finite system.

But, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try…

For example:

I am all for democracy-seeing that I live in a coountry that has its principles founded upon democracy. No matter how much I detest Grudem's ideals, there are some I support:

Wayne Grudem in Politics-According to the Bible, says that the Bible supports some kind of democracy.

> The Bible gives indirect but significant support to the idea that government should be chosen by the people (some kind of democracy)

> (1)The equality of all people in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 9:6; James 3:9)

> (2) Accountability of rulers to the people helps prevent a misuse of their power.

> (3) If government is to serve for the benefit of the people (Rom. 13:4), the government does not exist ultimately for the good of the king or the good of the emperor or the good of the ruling council, but for the good of the people themselves.

> (4) Government seems to work best with the consent of those who are governed. (See: Ex. 4:29-31; 1 Sam. 7:5- 6; 1 Sam. 10:24; 2 Sam. 2:4; 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Kings 12:1; Acts 6:3. By contrast see: 1 Kings 12:15-16; Exod. 3:9-10; Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 25:1-21; Matt. 2:16-17; Luke 13:1; Acts 12:1-2.)

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thety are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Declaration of Independence)

Dr. Wayne Grudem: Scriptures Give Indirect but Significant Support to a Democratic Form of Government

As mentioned earlier, I like his views on democracy, not much so his views on Systematic Theology.

TLDR:

That said, Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a comprehensive work, and few people are going to agree with every portion of it. For example, I take issue with his lack of engagement with other serious theologians. I could offer a much longer, more detailed review of Grudem’s work. But such criticisms must be developed more fully elsewhere.

I will say that Grudem’s text is handy for getting some basics out of the way or finding passages that might speak to a particular issue. With this small criticism, his debating style is sub-par, [which is quite an essential part of the Christian faith]. I disagree with that small portion of the work, but otherwise, I still value the work as a whole- which is a sentiment we both share.

> I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.

Abraham Kuyper is a nice resource to check out, and his works- as explained here and here- offers a nice change to many Neo-theologies that seemed to gain a great deal of traction over the decades. However, I feel that some of his views rejects some of the most prominent doctrines in Christianity.

First of all, welcome back, brother. I am especially touched that your fiancée would even suggest to find a Catholic Church. (As an aside, you're not a convert; you're a revert since you're already baptized into the Church. I thought maybe you'd appreciate that factoid.)

​

>I am looking for information about your Church, whatever you think is important to know.

There is a lot to know and many here would recommend a million and one things to study, especially since it sounds like you enjoy a good intellectual pursuit. I'm not going to discount others' recommendations, but I do want to highlight one thing: learn more about Jesus first. Find out what He taught, who He is, what His disciples and closest friends said about Him, what the Old Testament said about Him, etc. To that end...

​

>I am looking for recommendations for a Catholic-approved version of the Bible, geared towards someone who appreciates philosophy and prefers something close to the original translations, or the most accepted by the Church.

First thing to note, all Catholic Bibles have 72 books. Protestants have 66. If you can't get a hold of a Catholic Bible, a Protestant one will do for now until you do get around to buying a Catholic one. Now, as for Catholic Bibles, if you speak/read Latin you can't go wrong with the Vulgate Bible. It's a Bible that was translated by St. Jerome who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; he had the original manuscripts -- some of which are lost to us today -- so his translations are widely accepted as authentic and faithful.

There's also the English version of the Vulgate Bible known as the Douay-Rheims. It's an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin so the English will sound archaic to our modern ears. It's not as frustrating as, say, reading Shakespeare but it's pretty close. I personally prefer (and currently use) a Douay-Rheims Bible that has the Clementina Vulgata beside it. It's essentially Latin and English side by side. You can find one here.

If want one with plain English, the New American Bible Revised Edition would suffice. (If you use this website, let me know. I have a discount code from my last purchase.)

​

>I know nothing of the culture or norms of the Church, or what to expect as a new member.

One major rule to remember is that you can't receive Holy Communion until after you've gone to Confession. Given your situation, I would recommend setting up an appointment with a parish priest so he can give his full attention to you and your needs.

​

>I do not know how to introduce myself to the congregation

There's usually no need to introduce yourself to the congregation since parishes tend to be big. If you would like to formally introduce yourself, however, give the parish priest a call and set up a meeting with him. It would also be a great chance to speak with him about your situation and get some pastoral guidance.

​

>or tell a good Catholic church from a lesser one

Many here would recommend a more traditional parish. If that's not available, I'd say any Catholic church would do. If you're unsure about a particular church's standing, just give us the details on this sub. I'm sure someone here would be able to double check for you.

​

>I know nothing of the Saints or the miracles, or what has been confirmed by the Church and what hasn't.

These are things you can learn later on. Focus on Jesus first. Rebuild your relationship with Him. Start with the basics; if you don't, you might burn yourself out. There is A LOT to learn about the Faith. Some say it's a lifelong endeavour. :P

​

>I am also looking for a reading list to explore Catholic philosophy beyond those you typically encounter in standard philosophical reading, such as Aquinas or Pascal.

Hmmm... this depends on what sorts of things interest you. A good one that lightly touches on philosophy is Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft (anything by this guy is pretty good, by the way).

A book that may be more pressing to your current situation is Why Be Catholic? by Patrick Madrid and Abraham Skorka, Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn, as well as Why I am a Catholic by Brandon Vogt. (They might need to work on a more original title, though :P) Since you have an Evangelical background, Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray might be helpful (although it can be a bit dry; also, it mostly deals with the Church's teaching on Baptism and the Eucharist) as well as Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

You can never go wrong with classics such as a collection of C. S. Lewis' works, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton, and Confessions by St. Augustine.

If you want a historical examination of Jesus and the Early Church, a good place to start is The Case for Christ by Brant Pitre, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine by St. Eusebius, and The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I'd like to thrown in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David J. Hess. This last one pertains to the Catholic claim regarding the papacy (and which I think is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Catholic Church being the original one that the Lord founded).

Finally, there are YouTube channels you can follow/binge watch such as Bishop Robert Barron and Ascension Presents. Also, an amazing video about the Catholic Faith is a series made by Bishop Barron when he was "just" a priest called Catholicism.

I'm sorry if that's overwhelming but you raised some good questions. :P Anyway, I imagine it may be a lot right now so take it slowly, don't dive in through all of it at once. Find a local Catholic church, call up the priest, set up a meeting, then take it from there. And remember, you can always pray; God's always willing to talk with you.

Hello Aeronautico! I'll answer as best as I can.

1.) I believe my faith comes from God. He is the one who has softened my heart towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the reason I believe. When did I start believing? It wasnt because I was raised to believe. I made the conscious choice to believe as a teenager. This started with a blind leap of faith, to pray to God, and to follow Jesus, despite my own desire to remain sinful and disconnected to God. The good reasons for my belief came later, as I learned more about God and Jesus. I discovered that there are many good reasons to believe in God and Jesus, and my blind leap of faith was later vindicated.

2.) Only God himself can change my mind now. Nothing else. No argument, or piece of evidence will convince me that God does not exists or that Jesus is not his only son.

3.) You're not a good person, sorry to burst your bubble. You may do good things from time to time, but you are not good. Even one minor sin is enough to seperate you from God, and put you in Jeopardy of hell. No amount of alms giving and good deeds can ever reconcile you to God. For this is why he sent is Son, not to condemn us but through him we might be saved.

4.) Science and the bible rarely conflict. It is only when we talk about evolution versus creation that conflict arises. As far as I'm concerned, there are many problems with evolutionary theory, and the bible is my authority on creation. I wont get into it here, but there are lots of books and material covering just why evolution is wrong and creationism is the more sound doctrine. I'm reading one right now, although I havent gotten very far yet. Its called "the greatest hoax on earth? Refuting dawkins on evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati.

4.) The old testament relies heavily on Gods law, because the Christ had not yet come. I wont debate old testament morality here, because it is a big topic and I'm no expert, but as far as the 10 commandments go...well, its easy to see why thou shalt not steal or murder. If you will recall, Jesus, when asked which of the commandments were the greatest, said to love God above all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself. For if you keep these two commandments, you keep them all.

5.) The holy spirit allows us to know with confidence that Christianity is right and true. Imagine you are stuck with the problem of what does 2+2 equal? You have an infinite number of numbers to choose from for the answer, but only one of them can be right.

In truth, part of knowing that Jesus is truly the son of God is a leap of faith. I wont know 100% for sure that Christianity is true until I die, or Jesus comes. But there are good reasons to believe what we Christians believe. If you are looking for reasons to believe Christianity over some other religion, you should look into some Christian apologetics. William Lane Craig covers this in detail in his book "Reasonable Faith"

6.) Death is antithetical to life. Your question begs another question. If heaven is so great, why dont all Christians kill themselves? The answer is, to the best of my knowledge, that we are put on this earth for a reason. We are put on this earth, if nothing else, to tell others about Jesus so that they might be saved. Now if we welcomed death, we wouldnt be able to do our duty as Christians here on earth, and our reward would be little in heaven.

7.) Neither. I would vote for someone like Ron Paul, who is a Christian, yet does not believe in forcing others to be Christian by law. I believe in the constitutional freedom of religion.

8.) Assuming the God of the bible exists, he would be the ultimate source of all the talent that allows surgeons and doctors to perform their duties. God is the source of all life. Without him, no one would live. And God is the source of all wealth and resources. Without God, how could one pay their astronomical health care bill? Indeed, if the God of the bible exists, he is most certainly due all the thanks when someone is healed, by miracle, or by doctor.

9.) It is my belief that all changes and alterations made to the documents of the bible have been ordained by God, to arrive at what we know today as the holy bible. Its not as though we dont have many original ancient manuscripts still preserved to this day that confirm and corroborate much of the bible. Take the dead sea scrolls for example. I'm not saying all translations are good. I personally prefer the KJV as a foundation and the ESV as a companion translation. But the holy bible is unique. There is a whole field of research dedicated to the accurate translation and maintenance of the bible, that has existed for as long as the bible itself has. Think of the scrutiny placed on the bible throughout history. Any major changes in translation can be traced and verified through objective historical research. If some major change was made to the bible, I would have to appeal to the Christian authorities and bible scholars to know what to believe.

Harm,
I'm glad to hear that you're growing in your new faith! I was an atheist up until 3 years ago when I discovered 'Mere Christianity', so I feel like I'm on a very similar path

>How should I read the bible everyday? I have just been picking it up and opening to a page, but I am sure there is a better way.

There are a number of plans that people suggest. One popular plan involved a daily reading of 1 New Testament chapter, 1 Old chapter, and 1 from Proverbs.

Honestly, I've found it better to just read 1-3 chapters of the same book and plow through it so you get a better flow. For example, I just started reading Acts because I have an intense love of the early Church. I also love Luke, since he approaches the story of Jesus as somewhat of a historian/investigative reporter - all facts. You should find something that you like - preferably New Testament at first - and go through it.

I highly recommend getting a study bible. I love my ESV study Bible which you can get here.

As a new Christian, it's important to put things into context. You may read something and say "huh?" or "what?!?! I can't believe that God said that!". The study Bible has commentary on each verse and puts things into context. There are also great introductions to each chapter which tells you about the author, date of writings, theme, etc. Plus, the maps and additional essays are FANTASTIC.

>How do I stay strong in the face of setbacks?

If you truly are trying to follow God, then you will want to challenge your faith by asking the tough questions. I've seen so many Christians lose their faith because they blindly accepted the Bible...then they were questioned on it by an atheist, couldn't answer, and lost their faith. You should ask the tough questions and then look for the answers. There are tons of apologetics (defense of Christianity) resources out there.

Of course, if you have any confusion over something, please ask us here or search of google. If anything is really bothering you, feel free to message me if you want

>Anything else you would tell a new Christian?

Faith is worthless if you do not apply it to your own life. Let your light shine before all people by being truly loving, kind, and compassionate to all those around you. Spend a few hours at the soup kitchen. Look for an open, thriving church to join. When you wake up in the morning, take a few minutes to say thanks for your material and spiritual blessings and recognize that we deserve none of it but by His grace and love for you, he has provided you a second chance to wipe yourself clean of all sins

I believe in and subscribe to evolution. The science is undeniable.

You probably realize that there are good and strong Christians who take different positions about creation and evolution. There are 5 main positions:

• Young Earth, 6-day creation: The Earth is only about 6,000-10,000 years old, and God created the universe and everything we see in 6 24-hr days.
  
• Old Earth, 6-day creation: The universe is 13 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and God created it all in 6 days 13 billion years ago.
  
• Day-Age Theory: Each of the “days” of creation in Genesis aren’t literal days, but they represent long eras. For instance, the first “day” of creation (creation of light) could have been billions of years in the making. But each age follows the sequence as outlined in Genesis 1.
  
• Gap Theory: Genesis 1.1, like the first phase of creation, happened billions of years ago. Then something cataclysmic happened, and it was all turned “formless and void,” and God started the second phase of creation in Genesis 1.2, which happened more recently.
  
• Evolutionary Creationism: God created the universe and all that we see, but he used the processes of the Big Bang and evolution to created everything we see. If this is the position one takes, Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the universe to function (light functions to give us day, the Earth functions to bring forth vegetation, the heavenly bodies function to give us seasons, etc.), not about how He manufactured it. He certainly created (manufactured) it, but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about.
  
  At the same time, there are 6 different ways to define “evolution.” Only #6 is completely contrary to Christianity.
  
  
  
• The ancient earth thesis, some 4.5 billion years old
  
• The progress thesis: The claim that life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex forms. In the beginning there was relatively simple unicellular life. Then more complex unicellular life, then relatively simple multi-cellular life (seagoing worms, coral, jellyfish), then fish, then amphibia, then reptiles, birds, mammals, and human beings.
  
• Descent with modification: The enormous diversity of the contemporary living world has come about by way of offspring differing, ordinarily in small and subtle ways, from their parents.
  
• Common ancestry thesis: Life originated at only one place of earth, all subsequent life being related by descent to those original living creatures—the claim that, as Gould puts it, there is a “tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.” According to this theory, we are all cousins of each other—and indeed of all living things (horses, bats bacteria, oak trees, poison ivy, humans.
  
• Darwinism: There is a naturalistic mechanism driving this process of descent with modification: the most popular candidate is natural selection operating on random genetic mutation, although some other processes are also sometimes proposed.
  
• Naturalistic origins thesis: Life itself developed from non-living matter without any special creative activity of God but just by virtue of processed described by the ordinary laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
  
  So how can the Bible and evolution go together? Very easily if we take Christian position #5 and evolutionary positions #1-5. As long as we keep God as the central and necessary sovereign intelligence, power, person, and morality in the process, I don’t see where it’s a problem.
  
  I subscribe to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 laid out by Dr. John Walton in “The Lost World of Genesis 1” (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=john+walton&qid=1564575785&s=gateway&sr=8-2). Briefly reporting, in it he asserts that Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not how He manufactured it. Certainly God created the universe (as taught in other verses in the Bible), but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about.
  
  The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a *period* of light called day, and a *period* of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.
  
  
  Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)
  
  
  And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.
  
  
  In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God ordered the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies." Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).
  
  
  You probably want to know about the seven days. In the ancient world ALL temple dedications were 7-day dedications, where what God had done to order his world was rehearsed, and on the 7th day God came to "rest" in his temple—to dwell with his people and engage with them as their God. That's what the seven days mean.
  
  
  Back to evolution. Therefore Gn 1-2 make no comment on *how* the material world came about, or how long it took. We need science to tell us that. We need Gn 1-2 to tell us what it's there for (God's temple) and how it is supposed to function (to provide a place of fellowship between God and humans, and to bring God glory as an adequate temple for his Majesty).
  
  
  Feel free to discuss this. For those who have never heard these ideas, it takes a little adjusting. But they make a whole lot of sense to me.

http://catholicproductionsblog.com/dr-brant-pitre-introduces-new-book-case-jesus/

> Dr. Pitre's The Case for Jesus Intro Video Transcript
>
> I've been teaching the Bible as a professor now for a long time, and over the years I've noticed that many of my students believe in Jesus, but they don't necessarily know why they believe in Jesus, they don’t know why they think he’s the Messiah, the son of God. Lots of other people I know don't believe in Jesus, but they don't necessarily realize who Jesus claimed to be. For example, lots of them will say “oh well Jesus was just a good moral teacher,” or “Jesus was just an ordinary Jewish rabbi,” or “Jesus was just a great prophet.” Still others will say, “well how do we even know what Jesus did and said, we can't really understand him, we can't really have access to him, it was so long ago.” Some of these people, for example, compare the Gospels to the end product of a game of telephone. Maybe you’ve played the telephone game when you were a kid, they’ll say, “well the Gospels are like the telephone game, you know ,where one child tells a story to the next child, who tells it the next child, and it gets changed over and over again, until, at the end of the game, the story that you end up with is nothing like what you heard in the beginning. Is that what the Gospels are like? Are they just a long chain of anonymous traditions about Jesus, which may or may not be accurate. And what about those documentaries that come on every year, around Easter and Christmas, that ask questions like: did Jesus really claim to be divine? What about the lost Gospels, like the Gospel Thomas? Or a so-called Gospel of Q?
>
> How does all this factor into the reliability of the accounts that we find in the New Testament? In my new book, The Case for Jesus, I look at these questions head on, and I want to ask ourselves, what exactly is the biblical and the historical evidence for Christ, for who He claimed to be? We’re gonna look at questions like:
>
> How did we get the Gospels? So were they really originally anonymous, or were they written by the apostles and their followers? What about the the genre of the Gospels, what kind of books are these? Are they like folklore or fairytales? Are they myths? Or are they history? Are they biographies? And also too, what about the identity of Jesus? Who Jesus really claim to be? Was he just a prophet, or a great teacher, or a rabbi? Or did he fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah? And, most of all, did he actually claim to be God? Did he claim to be divine? This is going to be one most important points we have to deal with, because, you may have heard this before, there are lots of scholars out there who say that Jesus only claims to be divine in the Gospel of John. That he doesn't claim to be divine in the three earlier Gospels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So what about that? Is the score 3 against 1? And when were these books written? Are they too late to actually be reliable? How do we know what we know about who Jesus was, and what he did and said, and that's what I’m going to be looking at in this book, The Case for Jesus.
>
> Now what’s unique about this book, is that, there are of course thousands and thousands of books out there on Jesus, and lots of them, especially the more skeptical ones, tend to give you just one side of the argument. They’re gonna tell you why you shouldn't trust the gospel, why Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah, or claim to be divine. In this book I’m gonna give you both sides of the argument. I'm gonna give you arguments for and against the reliability of the Gospels. I’m gonna give you the arguments for and against Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, and claiming to be divine, and I'll let you decide, what is the evidence for Christ? And there are also lots of books out there that claim that Jesus never said that he was Divine, never claimed to be God. Well one of the things I try to show in this book is, that when you look at the gospel evidence, when you look at the question of Jesus’ divinity, you’ve got to pay attention to his Jewish context. Over and over again I've noticed that books by skeptics often will ignore the Jewish roots of Jesus’ divinity. In other words, you only will be up to see how he is identifying himself as divine, if you read His words in the first century Jewish context. So if you've ever been interested in the question of the origin of the Gospels, of the divinity of Christ. If you've ever wondered who was Jesus, and how do we know. Whether you're a Christian or non-Christian, Protestant or Catholic, whether you’re Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic, believer or nonbeliever, or maybe a little bit of both. If you've ever wondered who was Jesus, then this book, The Case for Jesus: the Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, is for you.


Video on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1osU9nkJ4

On science and evolution:

Genetics is where it's at. There is a ton of good fossil evidence, but genetics actually proves it on paper. Most books you can get through your local library (even by interlibrary loan) so you don't have to shell out for them just to read them.

Books:

The Making of the Fittest outlines many new forensic proofs of evolution. Fossil genes are an important aspect... they prove common ancestry. Did you know that humans have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis? (which would allow us to synthesize Vitamin C from our food instead of having to ingest it directly from fruit?) Many mammals have the same gene, but through a mutation, we lost the functionality, but it still hangs around.

Deep Ancestry proves the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins. It's no longer even a debate. MtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA can be traced back directly to where our species began.

To give more rounded arguments, Hitchens can't be beat: God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist (which is an overview of the best atheist writings in history, and one which I cannot recommend highly enough). Also, Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth is a good overview of evolution.

General science: Stephen Hawking's books The Grand Design and A Briefer History of Time are excellent for laying the groundwork from Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity through to the modern discovery of Quantum Mechanics.

Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are also excellent sources for philosophical, humanist, atheist thought; but they are included in the aforementioned Portable Atheist... but I have read much of their writings otherwise, and they are very good.

Also a subscription to a good peer-reviewed journal such as Nature is awesome, but can be expensive and very in depth.

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also an excellent look at the human mind and genetics. To understand how the mind works, is almost your most important tool. If you know why people say the horrible things they do, you can see their words for what they are... you can see past what they say and see the mechanisms behind the words.

I've also been studying Zen for about a year. It's non-theistic and classed as "eastern philosophy". The Way of Zen kept me from losing my mind after deconverting and then struggling with the thought of a purposeless life and no future. I found it absolutely necessary to root out the remainder of the harmful indoctrination that still existed in my mind; and finally allowed me to see reality as it is instead of overlaying an ideology or worldview on everything.

Also, learn about the universe. Astronomy has been a useful tool for me. I can point my telescope at a galaxy that is more than 20 million light years away and say to someone, "See that galaxy? It took over 20 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach your eye." Creationists scoff at millions of years and say that it's a fantasy; but the universe provides real proof of "deep time" you can see with your own eyes.

Videos:

I recommend books first, because they are the best way to learn, but there are also very good video series out there.

BestofScience has an amazing series on evolution.

AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is awesome.

Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists is good.

Atheistcoffee's Why I am no longer a creationist is also good.

Also check out TheraminTrees for more on the psychology of religion; Potholer54 on The Big Bang to Us Made Easy; and Evid3nc3's series on deconversion.

Also check out the Evolution Documentary Youtube Channel for some of the world's best documentary series on evolution and science.

I'm sure I've overlooked something here... but that's some stuff off the top of my head. If you have any questions about anything, or just need to talk, send me a message!

Regarding the eternal state of those outside the Church: We can say nothing about the eternal state of anyone, except that we believe the saints are in heaven praying for us. We must ask for mercy on all people: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, heretic, Muslim, atheist, etc. alike.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/the-geography-of-heaven-and-hell/

>'Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody

>burning in hell-fire — would you feel happy?'

>'It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,' said the hermit.

>The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:

>'Love could not bear that,' St. Silouan said. 'We must pray for all.'

We also don't think God is trapped in our altars. He can certainly worth other places, and even in other faiths if he so chooses. We believe ourselves to be the full expression of the Christian faith, but we acknowledge that other Christians have 'this or that' things correct as well. For example, most Christians can faithfully say they believe the Creed, with perhaps (what we regard as) a faulty understanding of what the 'One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church', or the addition of the filioque which regard as an improper insertion.

>The only way I can see to confirm any existing denomination is via the Bible, which seems kind of a backwards approach if we're not supposed to interpret the Bible and the Bible itself originates from these traditions. The Bible has earned my trust, but it has done so through reading and interpretation, which is apparently something I wasn't supposed to do.

This might be apropos to your thoughts here: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/is-the-bible-true-2/

>how would one distinguish if someone in the Church is going against the Church if the Church itself is, in the first place, what they're supposed to listen to.

The teaching of the Church is not simply what is taught in this moment in history: We can look back on the census of the Church through the ages. That consensus is what we are to learn from.

>Specifically, the hierarchical clergy, as if someone is better than someone else.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this system has existed even from the New Testament where Paul lays out the qualifications for an elder. Even most protestant groups have a similar structure.

No clergyman should think of himself as better than you. It does happen, but then, we are all sinful. The struggle for humility is one of the great battles of being a Christian. Even with the things that can go wrong though, we need these people to help guide us in our faith and growth so that we do not stumble off back into darkness.

>I dislike the whole "if you do X, we excommunicate you" approach

Excommunication is fixable through repentance. The reason excommunication exists is twofold. One is to distinguish who is 'not us' (although, properly, that's being declared anathema -- reserved for those teaching things contrary to the faith of the Church). The other is that it is a pastoral tool to help us. We believe communion to be the real body and blood of Christ, and to take communion with certain rots and attitudes in our hearts is harmful to us. Certain things need to be taken to confession and worked on so that we do not hurt ourselves. The desire for communion, since we regard it as the greatest expression of our faith, when it is denied to us can be a powerful incentive to mend our ways.

>Then, the icons, which I find difficult to reconcile with the commandment of "do not make any graven image of anything above or below".

I will be posting a lecture video in this sub on icons that was given at a university. In the mean time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Eastern_Orthodox_teaching | http://orthodoxwiki.org/Icon

>I feel like we should be humble instead of showing off with pretty things, before we start worshiping said pretty things.

We're not showing anything off. We have simply included beauty in our worship to remind us of the beauty we will encounter in heaven. If we worship the things then we are Doing It Wrong. I have seen plenty of Orthodox Churches that are decidedly ugly on the exterior, but still functioning and containing beautiful icons of Christ in the form of their people.

>Is there anything I need to know before going to an EO church as a non-baptized Christian who knows approximately nothing?

http://www.frederica.com/12-things/

>Is there such a thing as an EO Bible?

In English we have a study bible. I don't know much about the Russian bible market. The only difference is the inclusion of the deuterocanon, and we base our OT off the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text.

Young Earth Creationists start with the conclusion that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is the inspired word of God, without any error, and absolutely true in all that it says. And they believe the whole of the Pentateuch is straight-forward history. In my opinion, they regard it that way because they honestly can't conceive of any other [legitimate] way to interpret it.

And I'll admit it's hard. It's hard because our culture (20th/21st Century, American/Western European, Post-Enlightenment) only has a couple of categories for things. Best to use the language of the new Common Core...we have "literature" and "informational texts". And "literature" equals "fiction". So, if anything is supposed to be "true" (that is, "factual") than it must be read like an informational text. That is, whatever it says must be read as "literal".

(I'm sorry for all the box-quotes, but a big part of the problem, apart from categories, is the words we use--like "literal". I think N.T. Wright says a mouth-full in this clip with Peter Enns, where he says that what people usually mean by "literal" is "concrete", vs. abstract.)

As I said, the YEC's read Genesis as straight-forward history, because they don't have any other way (I think) to be faithful to the witness of Scripture as the true word of God. They don't have any other category to interpret it in. They wish (they are impelled) to regard it as true, but in doing so, they suppose the inspired author must have meant it to be a dry recitation of facts; i.e. this happened then this happened, etc.

They're reading Genesis through post-enlightenment, 20th century eyes. There shouldn't be any doubt about this, since Young Earth Creationism, of the Ken Ham, Henry Morris, ICR variety only had its beginning in the last century.

There is a great deficiency in our schools, and there has been for a very long time. Most of us are unable to separate myth from fiction. Or literature from fiction.

So, what's my opinion of YEC's. I think they ought to be commended for their faith in God and for their defense of His inspired word. But they need to be marinated in the whole history of the Church and the people of God, in order that they may begin to understand what it was--what truth--it was that the inspired author of Genesis wished to communicate.

I think John Walton is an important read in this respect. He takes his reader back to the time, and the mindset, of the people by whom and for whom these texts were written. I particularly recommend his book, "The Lost World of Genesis One.

Another important point, though, has to do with when these texts were written. Or, to whom they were written.

What's interesting, as Fr. John Behr points out in one of his talks (maybe not the one I've linked to) is that Adam, Eve, Noah, etc, really aren't mentioned in the whole of the Old Testament after those first 11 chapters. Maybe a genealogy here or there, but there's more emphasis on these personages in the letters of Paul and Peter than there is in the whole sacred texts of Israel prior to the exile. And has been often pointed out, the stories in the first eleven chapters of Genesis seem to borrow from, and refer to, Babylonian motifs. Might it be (perhaps) that Israel knew nothing of these stories before the Babylonian captivity? Might it be that they were therefore written by and to Jews returned from Babylon in the middle of the first millennium B.C. with the intent that they teach a theological, rather than an historical, truth?

I say "perhaps" and I say it advisedly. Because I'm not ready to dismiss the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis completely out of hand. But what I will say, is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literature, they are figurative, and they are meant to reveal deeper and more substantial truths than any bear recitation of historical facts could convey.

And I think that when YEC's interpret these chapters "literally", they do the inspired author (and themselves) a disservice, though their hearts may be in the right place.

First off, Welcome! You are a special snowflake, and don't let anyone tell you different! Also, I love cream cheese brownies and wine. Something in common already :). Secondly, I'm a catechumen (officially in the process of joining the Church) so take anything I say with a grain of salt as I'm definitely still learning. Other more experience Ortho folks will chime in I'm sure.


Having already attended some services with the intention of continuing I'd say you've got the right idea. Others here, like myself, experienced Orthodoxy first in books. It can be easy to read and read while never going to see and experience for yourself. So, good on ya.


If you're interested in supplementing what you're learning in the services and conversations with the priest, there are lots of good books and web resources. A couple books I’d recommend would be “The Orthodox Way” by bishop Kallistos Ware and “The Orthodox Church” by the same author. The first book deals more with Orthodox spirituality and the second starts off with some history in the first half and teaching/doctrine in the second half. Search through this sub-forum and you’ll find a lot of great questions/answers and links to some great articles.


I’m also a big fan of this blog by Fr. Stephen Freeman.
Feel free to ask any questions you have, there are some really great people in the sub-reddit that will be glad to help you out.


ps...My wife's interest in Orthodoxy isn't at the same place as mine. In my opinion it's best not to rush them or try to crame Orthodoxy down their throats in our new found enthusiasm. Pray for them, be patient and trust God to work on her heart is His own timing :)

A lot depends upon the resources that you have at your disposal. If you don't have any physical resources (books, commentaries, etc) then you can find most of what you need online. So let's start with resources and then go on to techniques. I'm going to assume that you don't know things, so please don't be offended if I explain something that you already know.

There's a great program available for PC called e-Sword and it allows you to have access to a ton of different Bible translations, commentaries, word studies, and other resources all for free. You also have the option of purchasing additional study material from within the program, but I've found that the free options are quite extensive.

I highly recommend buying at least one study Bible if you don't already have one. The one that I currently use is the ESV Study Bible. There's a Kindle version if you don't want a physical copy, but I prefer a physical copy.

I used to have a hard-copy concordance, but I actually got rid of it because I found myself using electronic versions more. If you don't already know, a concordance is just a giant index. It lets you look up a word (baptism, salvation, propitiation, whatever...) and it gives you a list of all the verses in the Bible that use that word. It can be very useful if you're doing a word study (more on that later). You can find them online or download them (like e-Sword or any other similar tool), so a physical copy isn't necessary.

Once you have those, you're ready to start. So now what?

Well, there are several different ways to study the Bible. If you don't already have a copy, I highly recommend Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods. Regardless of what you think about Rick Warren, that book is a very practical hands-on discussion of different methods of studying the Bible. If memory serves, he covers most (if not all) of the methods I'll talk about.

Now, onward!

• Word study - This is basically taking a word and seeing how it's used in the Bible. Suppose you're studying baptism. You get a concordance (as discussed above) and look up "Baptism" and it'll give you a giant list of verses. Then you'll probably want "Baptize", "Baptizing", etc. Take all of the verses and start going. If you want to take it a step further, start to look at the underlying Greek/Hebrew words. That's where tools like e-Sword come in handy. You can find a Bible that lets you click the English word and it'll tell you the Greek word. So then you can search the Bible for all other times that the same Greek word is used. That can be useful because the same Greek word can be translated several different ways.
  
• Personal Application - This is a quasi-study method. It's basically what the Life Journal uses. You do a series of readings and, using the SOAP acronym, find personal application. I say quasi-study because you're not really using tools to "study", per se. It's extremely useful, though, because if you're journaling every day you'll start to see themes emerge. That's where the study comes from. You can see how God has been guiding you and how God is speaking. At any rate, SOAP stands for Scripture, Observation, Application, Prayer. So you find a scripture and write about it (i.e. provide context, what it's saying, etc) and then how you can personally apply it to your life (not "I believe it means X" but "I ought to do X as a result of this") and then a prayer (obviously related to the scripture/application). It's also nice because you end up reading a lot of Scripture and the Bible is its own best commentary.
  
• Book study - This is where you read an entire book and then study that book. Let's choose Ephesians. You read the entire book in one sitting. You then outline the book. It's an epistle (fancy word for letter) so who wrote it? Who was it written to? What are the themes? After you do that, then you read it again and start to pull out verses/passages that apply directly to your life. If you have access to commentaries/tools then you'd also use them to read about the history of Ephesus, the context of the letter, and other background information.
  
• Theme study - This requires a bit more work because you need access to a lot of tools. You'll be studying something like "reconciliation" or "salvation" and then doing A LOT of reading. Unless you have the entire Bible memorized you'll need to find tools that will give you passages to read based upon that theme. A lot of study Bibles will have a theme index that will help you. At this point you'll also find commentaries useful because they'll frequently reference other passages and then you'll find yourself bouncing all over the Bible. Taking good notes is required for this, because otherwise you can forgot where you were or why you ended up in Ecclesiastes.
  
  There are other methods, of course, but that should give you a good start. Hopefully this is helpful.

Bingo. Stephen Jay Gould called this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria


As a religious person, I view religion as a way of understanding the meaning behind it all, and science as a tool for exploring God's creation. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. How could there be any conflict? If religion has held some view (generally for lack of any better explanation at the time, as it was with Geocentrism) that has since been disproven by science (done correctly, that is), then what is a religious man/woman to do but rejoice? Knowledge is a good thing. If God created the universe, then to study the universe is to learn more about His handiwork.


EDIT: I just wanted to take a moment (since this post has gotten a wee bit of exposure and because this will be extremely relevant to a lot of the response comments) to suggest a book that has been instrumental in shaping my views on evolution and the relationship between religion and science. The book is called "Finding Darwin's God", and it's written by Kenneth Miller. Anyone use the green dragonfly Biology textbook in high school? Yeah, that Kenneth Miller.


http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501


Anyway, this is the book that changed my mind (as a Christian raised with the "evolution is antithetical to our faith" mindset) on evolution. Miller (himself both an accomplished Biologist and a Christian) spends the first 2/3 of the book utterly demolishing every single common argument against evolution. Just... destroys them. "Irreducible complexity", young earth creationism, etc. You name it, he brings it down with logic and relevant examples. Great source for anyone looking for some well-sourced material and examples to bring to a (respectful, let's keep it classy) debate on the subject. Then, with the last 1/3 or so of the book, Miller talks about how embracing science (including evolution, obviously) is actually the only responsible choice for a person of faith. He discusses how the "God of the Gaps" philosophy is really and truly detrimental to belief in a glorious God who created the universe, and talks about how a Christian should not be afraid of new scientific discovery but should instead embrace it.


Anyway. Great book. If I were to list the 5 books that had had the largest impact on my life and views, this one would definitely be in the top 5. Plus it changed my mind on something. It's not often that that happens, especially to pre-college me (I've mellowed out a bit since then). I'd recommend it to anyone, whether you are a person of faith or not.

>Where do you draw the line between religion and superstitious nonsense? Frankly, I'm having a difficult time separating them at all. Too many people say, "I don't understand how that works, therefore God."

There are principles for reasonable belief. The three I can think of are:

1. Faith must not conflict with what you know. Faith exceeds knowledge, but it cannot bypass it.
   
2. Make sure your beliefs are internally consistent (you'd be surprised how many Christians ignore this principle)
   
3. Your faith must be living: transforming you into a better person. A faith that makes you into a worse person is a bad faith.
   
   >Assuming that Christianity is correct, how can one know with a little more certainty? I'm willing to make a leap of faith, but without some credible evidence, it's like trying to ford the Mississippi river. Can we bring it a little closer to "caulk the wagon and float it across?"
   
   Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, but it's going to require some research on your part, and by research I don't mean a few google searches. Books can be a good friend. Some others here may be able to recommend good books about the historicity of Jesus and the church, but I tend to favor the philosophical and metaphysical.
   
   >Assuming there exists some evidence sufficient to convince me of Christianity's veracity, which version is correct and how can one know? Or does it really matter, since every Christian church agrees on the most important points?
   
   It's incredible unlikely that any given church is correct on every single point of doctrine. The best you can do is take up the protestant ethic by studying for yourself to see which doctrines appear to be the most reasonable. Looking for the "correct" church is a red herring, in my opinion.
   
   Examining your faith can be a very rewarding experience, even if you end up becoming atheist/agnostic. Just don't take in more than you think you are ready for.

Well there are many in my experience in Catholicism that live a dry faith, meaning they don't feel fancy feelings rather they know through knowledge and study.

I cannot of course say that my feelings are more valid than another's we're all biased but that would be a terrible thing to say overall. As if someone else's personal feeling are less important than my own. However, I cannot also say that my feelings are no different from a muslim or mormon or any other religious because then it would seem that other religious feel the same as I do, so therefore something must be amiss as if there is a true religion in this world, feelings such as those should under reasoning only happen with that particular one.

I do not deny their feelings or doubt my own so what else do I have up my sleeve.

I'm a Catholic as you can probably tell from my username (also I hope you enjoy your time I reddit since I think you're new?). This means that along with feelings of ecstasy or not, how would I ever believe the Catholic Church to be the one correct religion.

Catholicism is easy to understand at a basic level, but going further reveals a large web of complicated reasoning dating back hundreds even over a thousand years ago.

1. The Church's age, the Catholic Church by most estimates date it back to the early 1st century. Church teaching says the official church was founded at Pentecost would be ~33 CE. This means that by age alone, The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the West, surviving Romans, the early Umayyad Caliphate as well as the ones afterwards in the wake of the founding of Islam, the black death which came from the East, and even modern dangers such as fascism from Mussolini, Nazism from Hitler and company and communism from eastern Europe.
   
   
2. Through these almost ~2,000 years, the church has not taught against itself, in that I mean contradicting or changing a teaching. The day that the church changes a teaching is the day I am no longer a Catholic and more likely an agnostic or perhaps a deist and living my life in peace.
   
   
3. Unlike a lot of other religions, Catholicism (and Christianity in general for the most part) talk about giving things up in our current earthly life to receive rewards in the afterlife as opposed to receiving material rewards while still alive here on this Earth.
   
   Honestly I could ramble all day, verring off topic at the slightest thought, but I'll stop here and just give some resources if that may interest you.
   
   The first is New Advent which is a completely free site where you can have access to church documents (in the library) access to the bible in both Greek, Latin and English, a full version of the Summa written by Thomas Aquinas and many other writing of some early Christian figures that helped define many of the beliefs of Christianity in the world of the 1st century and onward.
   
   The second is r/Catholicism, assuming you don't spam (I believe the limit is 3 posts a week) you can ask all the questions you like from people who may correct misunderstandings or give additional resources.
   
   For two book recommendations I recommend The Catechism of the Catholic Church which can found online for free on the Vatican's website keep in the mind it's a very small font or by buying it from Amazon which also offers a kindle version for very cheap and an audiobook if that is more your thing.
   
   The other is (the less subtlety named) Answering Atheism which I've heard many good things about from some friends of mine and folks from r/Catholicism.
   
   I thank you most of all for being polite and courteous and I hope our exchange was educational for both of us. Always feel free to DM me for anything else.

First off, I got what looks to be some great books from my match. I got Perdido Street Station, Hyperion, The Sparrow, The Little Country, and American Gods. I have never read nor heard of these titles, but I'm excited to start reading them.

Now for the best part. My match sent me an original manuscript for a novel they wrote. How awesome is that? They also included a short story (a side story to the novel) that includes me as a character. I can honestly say that this is one of the best things I've ever received! I think I'll start with the novel first.

http://imgur.com/xVFbm

*update: Thanks for all of the encouraging posts! It seems that I really struck gold on this exchange. I sent a little reddit gold love to my SS for the wonderful gift. It's such a great collection that I feel like the books I sent to my match are woefully inadequate.

Some key concepts and interesting facts:

• The deposit of faith comprises not just the Bible, but also sacred tradition. Traditions that have been passed down from the days of the apostles are as authoritative as the Bible.
  
• Catholic Bibles contain 73 books rather than the 66 you're probably used to, with longer versions of Daniel and Esther. The difference is known to Catholics as the deuterocanon, and to Protestants as the Apocrypha.
  
  
• The Catholic hierarchy derives its authority from apostolic succession. Each bishop has been consecrated by another bishop, who was consecrated by another bishop, who was consecrated by another bishop, in a line going all the way back to the twelve apostles, and they have inherited the teaching authority of the apostles.
  
• The Pope is a bishop specially elected to succeed to the place of the apostle Peter, whom Jesus named the head of the apostles and the rock on which he would build his church. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome because that's where Peter was bishop when he died.
  
• The body of bishops, when united with Peter's successor as its head, is infallible. That is, the Holy Spirit will prevent the bishops from teaching an error in faith or morals as binding on the faithful. The Pope individually can also make infallible pronouncements. This doesn't mean that the bishops are free from sin, or that they are infallible on other subjects like physics, economics, or geography.
  
• The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe almost all the same stuff as Catholics and also have valid apostolic succession, but deny that the primacy of the Pope is anything more than honorary. The Anglican Church claims apostolic succession, but Catholics reject the validity of their orders due to changes in the ordination rite in the 16th Century.
  
  
• A saint is anyone who is in heaven. The Church declares some people to be saints after a rigorous investigation, but this isn't meant to imply that no other people are saints.
  
• Catholics honour the Blessed Virgin Mary above all other saints for her special participation in Jesus' mission of salvation. It is Catholic dogma that she was conceived free from original sin, remained sinless her entire life, and was assumed body and soul into heaven. (Note that she didn't ascend of her own power like Jesus, but was assumed.) However, this doesn't mean she didn't require salvation by Jesus.
  
• People have reported Marian apparitions going all the way back to 40 AD (when she was still alive!). The Church declares some of these to be "worthy of belief," but they're considered private revelations no matter how many people witness them, and do not add to the deposit of faith. Catholics are not required to believe in them.
  
• Saints can pray for people on Earth. When Catholics pray for the intercession of saints, they're not asking a saint to make some direct intervention of their own, but to pray to God on their behalf.
  
• Catholics do not worship the saints, nor Mary, nor anything other than God as the Trinity.
  
  
• The Mass is not just an hour or so of worship music, prayers, and a sermon, though all of those are included; Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is re-presented (not represented) in the Eucharist. It is the same sacrifice, in that it is offered by the same person (Jesus), it has the same victim (Jesus), and it has the same effect (the remission of sins).
  
• The doctrine of transubstantiation holds that when the priest holds the bread and wine over the altar at Mass and says the words of consecration (in which moment he acts in persona Christi), they cease to be bread and wine and become the actual body and blood of Jesus, although to the senses they remain indistinguishable from bread and wine.
  
• A consecrated host is often publicly displayed for purposes of Eucharistic adoration, a practice which became popular around the 14th Century. Since the host is Jesus, it is right to worship it.
  
• If you visit a Catholic Mass, you should know that non-Catholics normally aren't supposed to receive the Eucharist.
  
  Further reading:
  
  
• Catholicism for Dummies
  
• Rome Sweet Home
  
• New American Bible
  
• Catechism of the Catholic Church

What are your goals? Do you want to learn Catholic teaching? Know and understand the Bible stories? Do you want to read casually or do you want to put in some serious study?

If you just plan on using it every so often but are curious to learn more about Catholicism, there's the New Catholic Answer Bible. It's a New American Bible translation, which most of us on here don't like. This Bible has lots of inserts that answer common questions about Catholicism (Why do we confess to a priest? Why do we think Jesus is God? Why do we venerate Mary? What are saints? etc). My parish uses this Bible as the textbook for those in the RCIA program (the class for adults who want to join the Catholic Church), so it's a good way to learn.

If you want to learn the Bible story in an easy to read way-- The Great Adventure Bible just came out and breaks down the story of salvation into an easy to understand narrative. It helps you see how the Old Testament and the New fit together. If you want to really understand the Bible and want to commit to reading through a good chunk of it, this is the one to get (they have you start off with what they believe to be the 14 most important books to the story of salvation and then you can go back and read the "supplementary" books). **It's sold out right now, but it may be worth waiting for if you really want to learn the Bible story.

If you really plan on doing some serious study of Catholicism and putting time into it, get the Didache Bible. It cross-references the Catechism and is a good way to learn Catholic teaching in a more in depth way, but it's not nicely laid out for you like the other two I suggested. You have to be willing to do a lot more work going back and forth to the Catechism.

Either way, I suggest getting a Catechism to go along with your Bible. Ideally you should be going back and forth between the two as the Catechism explains the Catholic applications of the Bible. You can also find the complete Catechism online for free (you can find the Bible online for free, too), but I prefer the physical book.

Well, I actually grew up in the Pentecostal tradition. I converted to Southern Baptist about two years ago, and made the switch to reformed theology about one year ago.

It really depends on the church with Baptists; they're highly variable. Some groups, like free-will baptists, are emphatically opposed to Calvin and the like. Others, like self-proclaimed reformed baptists, welcome and celebrate Calvin and his contemporaries' contributions to Protestantism. I've never attended a baptist church that wasn't at least implicitly Calvinist, though I only recently started attending a properly reformed Church that observed the 2nd London Baptist Confession. Hence, it's kind of difficult to give much advice, as I've always been in friendly territory.

If you just want to get a better feel for reformed theology in-general, there are a couple of routes. Depending on your reading comprehension and Biblical competence, I would recommend a few books.

Novice: Bible Doctrine, Grudem.

This is a decent, modern introduction to systematic theology in-general. Grudem is not what many would call reformed, but he leans that way. Whatever the case, it is a helpful look into the terminology that theologians have utilized over the years. Good place to get your feet wet.

Adept: Systematic Theology, Grudem

Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck

These ones are a bit more academically oriented, so if you're not used to reading this sort of thing, they might be difficult to read. Bavinck's work is highly recommended, and is properly reformed, though it takes a greater reading comprehension than Grudem.

Advanced: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin

Anything else earlier than the 20th Century (Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, etc.)

This is the bedrock of reformed theology, which I'm sure you're probably aware of. The only problem is that it can be very difficult to read. In some cases, much more than the content of modern academia. This is really a very very distilled list. There is literally so much good material out there, but these are some of the big names that I hear often.

As regards general advice, two things come to mind:

1. I would keep in mind the primacy of the text of Scripture itself. This might seem obvious, but one of the pitfalls of the reformation is the romance with systematic theology. Though ST is a wonderful thing, some reformed guys do it at the expense of the textual significance of the Scriptures themselves. We must always ask ourselves if we, in our exposition, are doing justice to what the Scriptures themselves are saying. Again, this seems obvious, but it is rarely borne out the praxis of our theology and exegesis.
   
   
2. Do not make Calvinism or Reformed theology the locus of your Christianity or your identity. Though reformed soteriology is seminal to our faith and practice, we must ultimately identify ourselves as the covenant people of God; those united to Christ through faith in His death and resurrection. Rest in the substance of your faith, not in its explanation.
   
   I'll be praying that you heed the Scriptures in all things, and that your life coheres with the will of God. Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions or concerns as relates the reformation, theology, Scripture, or anything!
   
   Soli deo Gloria

The Oxford Short Introductions Series has a great volume on Mormonism that covers the faith in a very even-handed and neutral manner. If you're pressed for time, this would probably be the best thing to read. The Dummies and Idiot's Guide are actually not that bad in their presentation of the faith; they're both by what would be termed "liberal Mormons" and do a pretty good job of being realistic in their presentation (though both still being very positive, of course, but they're not conversion texts).

To understand the different faiths in the Latter Day Saint movement you need to understand the history of the faith as so much of the faith claims are rooted in historical events. Books like Rough Stone Rolling and No Man Knows My History give a good overview of Joseph Smith's life. The upcoming Brigham Young biography by John Turner seems like it will also be a good source for information on Young's tenure as president of the Church as it will discuss some of the darker/stranger issues like blood atonement and Adam-God. If you want to go in depth on the history of the Temple ritual, I'd recommend Buerger's The Mysteries of Godliness.

The last information I would give is that most (but not all) books published by Christian publishers should probably be avoided. Nowadays most of them are factual in their content, but their presentation is not meant to provide an understanding of the LDS Church but rather is meant to provide a multiplicity of reasons not to associate with the faith. A few exceptions I'd say are most books by Sandra and Gerald Tanner, and By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus which is an amazing overview of Joseph's "Book of Abraham" and the history and implications of the papyri Smith used in producing it which were rediscovered in 1967 to the subtle consternation of the CHurch ever since.

I can relate to your story in some ways, as I was raised Catholic, then became agnostic during high school and university. I came back to the Catholic Church after the positive witness of my family and friends, and having an encounter with Christ in my second year of college.

After that personal experience in prayer I knew that Jesus was real, but I still had a lot of unanswered questions about Catholicism, as well as no intellectual foundation to undergird my newfound faith in Christ. So I devoured a couple of good Catechisms, and over time, studied philosophical, Christian and Catholic apologetics to get solid answers to the questions and doubts that anyone with critical thinking skills will have. I am now a Catholic priest.

Here are some resources I would suggest:

• Pints with Aquinas by Matt Fradd - Great podcast with the tagline "If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him a question, what would you ask?" Addresses many topics covered in Aquinas's writings wtih engaging and entertaining commentary. You might start with the several episodes focusing on various philosophical arguments for God's existence.
  
• Does God Exist? A Socratic Dialogue on the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas by Matt Fradd and Robert Delfino - Written as an entertaining, but informative set of dialogues between Lucy (a Catholic) and AJ (an atheist) in a coffee shop.
  
• The Magis Center for Reason and Faith by Fr. Robert Spitzer - Good resources on the meaning and purpose of life, happiness, and the relationship between science and faith. Fr. Robert was recently interviewed by Closer to Truth on diverse arguments for God's existence
  
• Recent atheist to Catholic conversion stories of Jennifer Fulwiler, Leah Libresco, and Robert Bullivant
  
• Strange Notions - A place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists, built around reason, faith, and dialogue.
  
• Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity: by Trent Horn
  
• The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Dr. Brant Pitre
  
• CSLewisDoodle - Hand drawn doodles of BBC broadcast talks from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

I apologize in advance if this seems preachy or me trying to influence you, that's not my intention. I just want to help you understand what Christianity really is. There's lots of confusion.

-----

First, you don't have to be baptized to get saved, or go to heaven (Jesus told one of the criminals on the cross that "today you will be with me in paradise.", and he didn't get baptized). Baptism is a demonstration of your faith, but not a prerequisite to salvation.

Second, be careful any time you start adding/removing parts of the Bible, that you aren't doing so just because you don't like it. Because if that's the case, you will end up worshiping a god of your own creation, rather than the God of all Creation. (not saying that there are no transcription/translation errors in the Bible, but just be careful, and make sure you have substantial evidence [not just the opinions of random guys on the internet] supporting your decision).

 

But to address your worry about not being a "true Christian" for a while: Christianity is not about following rules, going to church, or trying to do good. These are all byproducts of Christianity, but if you try to just go after these, you WILL fail (1). Being a Christian is just about making a decision that you will give the creator of the universe complete and total control of your life (2).

The benefits of this, is that when we seek after God (try to get to know him better through prayer and reading the Bible), all those things people think are Christianity will start to show up in your life. You don't have to stop drinking, but you'll want to at some point once you have spent time with God.

 

And as far as finding a denomination, I'd suggest a careful, methodical approach: be incredibly suspicious of anything the pastor says, and do your own research. Pastor says healing is not for today? Go up to him after service and ask him (politely) where you can find more reading about how he came to that opinion. Pastor says healing is for today, but not for everyone? Same thing. Pastor says healing is for today, but and is for everyone? Ditto.

Combine that with constant prayer asking God to show you the right church for you, and you should find the right one in God's time. (I personally had to do this, since I grew up non-denominational, and then moved out of state to a small-ish city for work, and had to find a new church to go to). You may not find a church you 100% agree with, but before leaving after a small disagreement, ask yourself how important your disagreement is. Is the pastor saying Jesus wasn't actually the Christ? Probably time to find a new church (is that even a church at that point?). Does the pastor say God's favorite color is red? Maybe not a big deal.

Another thing to look at is the results of the ministry. (3) If the church is changing peoples lives for the better, then it's probably a good church (maybe not your church, but a good church none the less).

Make sure you take time observing any church you go to though. You can't tell how good or bad a car is in a glance. Sure you can notice if something's really bad, but some problems don't show up unless you take your time to really examine the car, and/or give them time to exasperate.

 

Bottom line is, think analytically about scripture, compare that to what's being preached, and judge (examine) the ministry by the effects they have on those around them.

 

P.S. Strong's Concordance, and a good study Bible (4) are essential tools to study and understand the original text, to check for translation errors. I prefer physical copies, but you can find Strong's and plenty of free study bibles here. The Strong's is like a Dictionary for Greek and Hebrew words, so if aren't sure of the meaning of a word, you can look it up there. Study Bibles are great resources for looking up if a verse or group of verses mean what you think they mean (obviously this one is more subject to the author's opinion).

 

-----

(1) "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", Rom 3:23. The Greek word translated sin means continuous, habitual, intentional disobedience to God.

(2) The Greek word translated "Lord" in Romans 10:9 is the same word used to describe slave-masters. So we should consider God in this way. We submit our lives to him, not on a case-by-case basis, but overall, in every area. Note that this does not become a reality immediately, but is instead a continuous process of change.

(3) "You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. [...] A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit." Matt 7:16-17.

(4) the link is to my favorite (and a theologically neutral) study bible. It puts things into context, giving you insight into the culture of the time, and scholar's notes on events and their significance. Obviously remember that the study texts are the opinions of a man, or group of men, and are not infallible.

You should definitely stay in the faith. From what you've said you're the ideal person to be a Christian. Jesus came to save sinners, not the perfect. If you feel like you don't pray enough, remind yourself that there's no gold star for praying, and that God never says he'll punish anyone for not praying enough. You're right that being a Christian isn't always easy, but it really is worth it. And yes, it can be difficult, but it's also freedom and true life. I know personally that feeling like a hypocrite sucks, but it's worth staying with it. I went through about 5 years of flirting with atheism and feeling trapped but I'm so glad I stayed. There are answers to your doubts, very good ones. But it can take a bit of searching to find good ones.

Re. Reading the Bible, I think your instinct to be careful in your interpretation is really helpful, but that doesn't mean the only options you have is reading everything as 100% literal (as in, this is what I would've seen if someone was there with a camera) on the one hand, and 100% allegorical (as in, this is kind of like Lord of the Rings in that it makes a nice point but is really just fantasy) on the other.

If you're thinking of Genesis in particular, there's a long history of reading it as not necessarily referring to 6 literal 24hr days (for example St Augustine). [The lost world of Genesis 1] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830837043?ie=UTF8&tag=thebiofou06-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830837043) by John Walton is a good place to start if you want to understand the way in which Genesis fits its Ancient Near Eastern context.

On the bigger topic of archaeology, slavery, what's the point of Genesis, why is the OT so wierd, is there a way between literalism and allegoricalism? etc. Inspiration and Incarnation
by Peter Enns is by far the most helpful thing I've read.


TL:DR
Keep going! Read Atheist Delusions, The Lost world of Genesis 1 and, Inspiration and Incarnation. Don't give up, there's plenty of really good answers out there. Christianity is life and freedom. You may not feel it now but the more you look into it, the more you'll see it. At least, that's my experience.

Hello!

Yes I really do believe there is evidence! There is good evidence and plenty of it, it isn't hard to find.

I've got four things that you can do right now:

1. Pray to God and ask that He would prove/reveal Himself. If God is not real, you have lost 60 seconds of your time. If God is real then this is the best thing in the world that you can do right now. That seems like a very good tradeoff!
   
2. Start reading the Bible. Maybe start at John's historical account of Jesus' life. You can do so here if you don't have a Bible already: https://www.bible.com/bible/111/JHN.1.NIV
   
3. Get properly reading the evidence, don't stay uninformed. This really matters. Three books I'll recommend:
   
   But Is It True? - Michael Ots
   
   The Reason for God - Tim Keller
   
   Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
   
   
4. Watch this video as a good start point for looking at the evidence for God. You can go through the bethinking website as much as you want to. It was really helpful for me: https://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/case-for-christian-theism
   
   Please do message me if you have any questions or want any other help/ideas. I'd love to chat to you more. I'm convinced there is evidence, please do tell me why you do agree/disagree and what you're thinking :)

It's actually really interesting that you state that location and time frame because that's probably where Christian communities had the least interaction after the Destruction of the Temple in 66 CE.

Diarmaidd MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is a great reference and a really easy read. It's a big ol' tome, but he sections it really well. His take is that during the first Jewish revolt in 66 the early Christian Jews fled Jerusalem since they didn't have as much of a stake in Jewish Nationalism. After that point they never really returned to Jerusalem until communities like St. Jerome's monastery moved in in the 4th century. (There was a small community there. Jerome's emigration from Rome to Jerusalem was seen as a major imposition by the then Bishop of Jerusalem.)

Anyways, back to the main question. Before around 40 CE the two communities were fairly indistinguishable. The Synagogues served as the locus of both Christian and Jewish religious life. This makes more sense if we think of the Synagogue less as a specific place with a specific congregation and more as a "community center." It was (like its name suggests) a gathering place for study and discussion. The book of Acts (which covers a timeframe from around 36-60 CE.) frequently shows this not going well. In Acts 7 Stephen (regarded by the Church as the first Martyr) preaches in the Synagogue of the Freedmen and almost immediately afterwards they stone him. We can't take that as a broad-spectrum statement on how relationships were across all communities, but it was certainly something that effected early Christian communities. Acts records Paul frequently speaking in Synagogues and it doesn't always end badly. Acts 17 is a microchosm of mixed responses, and that's probably a fair way to look at the whole situation, it was a mixed bag.

By the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 its pretty clear that we're talking about two separate communities doing two separate things with a general disregard for one another. By this point the Christian communities are starting to form distinctive forms of worship and self governance.

To see what Christians thought about Jews in the 2nd Century I'd highly recommend reading Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Its written in the form of a classical dialogue with a straw-man interlocutor but its a fair assessment of what Christians thought of Jews in the 2nd century.

Hope that helps.

Edit: I should say that most of what I was talking about Geographically was happening in Asia Minor and Southern Greece. Also, I don't mean to give the impression of taking Scripture as purely historical fact, but I think its a fair way to get a feel for what early Christian Communities thought about the situation, which is more helpful for your question anyway.

I'm vaguely familiar with some references to early Christianity in the Talmud, I'd be really interested to hear about this from the perspective of a Diaspora Scholar.

This is a rather long story, but I will try to make it short and sweet.

It started when I was, without warning and explanation, kicked out of my Church. I received a call the day after my first child was born telling me I was no longer welcome. To this day I do not know the reason, but I suspect personal vendettas. I found myself without a job and entered a crises of faith. This emotional blow started my path on what I would consider an intellectual journey.

After a few months, my wife and new child eventually found a few new churches to attend. I was looking for a new preaching job. I eventually moved several states away and decided to take a break for a bit and get a job in the "real" world. I still taught classes, preached occasionally, and even door-knocked, but it was the last time I was on church payroll. (God, you should hear the audio of my teachings. Talk about FUBAR.)

Eventually, my views became more and more "liberal' as I did more reading on scriptural interpretation. I began looking into Messianic Judaism and eventually came to realize that Jesus' supposed purpose was redundant. The forgiveness of sins were possible to the Jews even without sacrifice, and to Gentiles by living noble lives. What, then, was the purpose of the Christ? It seemed to me to make salvation infinitely more difficult... doesn't sound like something a loving god would do.

I started to search the Old Testament much closer and discovered several things. There are actually very, very few prophesies that can be ascribed to Jesus, and most of these are clear forgeries. For instance, the death of Jesus is never actually prophesied in the Old Testament. Something was amiss, and I started deep studies in textual criticism. I began to suspect the New Testament wasn't inspired and starting studying actual Judaism.

Around this time, I started reading the book, Misquoting Jesus and my eyes were opened. I was dumbfounded and started doing much deeper study. I concluded that the New Testament (and later the whole Bible) was simply a set of old documents. Certainly not inspired and certainly not perfect.

What was even more confusing is that many Christian professors/scholars knew this, but were still believers. This was completely nonsensical to me. In my mind, the inspiration of the scriptures were a critical corner stone of Christianity. If the witness wasn't infallible, than the entire religion fell apart like a house of cards. If god could raise Jesus from the dead, how much easier would it be to protect the evidence? If god couldn't perform that simple feat, then... well... FAIL.

At this point, I still believed in a god, and was very, very confused. I started studying other religions in depth. I bought dozens and dozens of books. The more I read, the more I realized a very profound, albeit simple, truth: virtually all religious people, deep in their heart, really believe they're right. How was I supposed to know which god to follow?

I then decided to go even further out of my box, and study evolution, from an "insiders" perspective. I probably have every single creationist / anti-evolutionist book in existence, but I figured if I had gotten Christianity wrong, and I was deceived, it could very well be possible that I didn't know jack shit about evolution--which turned out to be the case.

As soon as I understood the "miracle" of evolution, I instantly realized god was a fabrication; a lie. Reading The God Delusion put the final nail on the coffin. (Dawkins is my hero. I wish I could shake that man's hand. I felt he has saved my life. This man truly does great work. Whereas before I had a complete disdain for science, mathematics, etc., I now became eager to learn everything I could. Whole new worlds were opened up, and I wanted to know how everything worked. I mean, who knew nature was so cool?!)

TL;DR Damn, nature; you're awesome.

Great for you to join us :-)

I would suggest reading sections of the Bible in an order similar to this due to usefulness and readability:

1. Gospels and Acts
   
2. Psalms and Proverbs
   
3. Genesis through to 2 Kings (although some parts of Number and Leviticus can be challenging)
   
4. Ezra to Job, Ecclesiastes to Song of Solomon
   
5. The rest of the New testament
   
6. The Prophets
   
   I think that the letters in the new testament and the prophets have so much good stuff in them, but can be a little hard to digest. With these books I would look for a commentary or some literature that helps to point to the most useful parts. Some times the really useful parts are easily missed due to being written in amongst some other parts that are harder to understand.
   
   I would also suggest you find a good church in your area - a good church is one which focusses on what is in the scriptures and teaches real world application from it.
   
   Also, if you begin to get interested in some deeper parts of theology, I would recommend that you look into the works of people like Wayne Grudem who I think is helpful due to the way he approaches issues - he considers each main view point and then states an answer with regards to how it most logically fits. His book on Systematic Theology is excellent in my opinion.
   
   Once again, welcome to you :-)

I want to repeat what others have said in gratitude for your respectful approach to our faith and your position. It says very good things about you as a person, and it means a lot to us as a community.

I don't have much to recommend for your kids, but I can suggest a few things for you.

First, although it is a bit odd to recommend a Protestant to introduce you to Catholicism, I do recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is a very good introduction to some of the essential ideas of Christianity, and as a bonus it is written by C.S. Lewis, so it is very enjoyable to read.

Another thing I recommend is trying to make sense of the liturgical calendar. The big themes of Catholicism are given space on the calendar to help Catholics absorb them in a regular and balanced way. As a teacher, you will have opportunities to talk to the kids about what's currently going on last Sunday/the coming Sunday/this current season, and I imagine you can find ways to tie in the lessons you already had planned. If you can get your hands on a missal, it will give you relatively detailed information on the liturgical calendar and the scheduled scripture readings, and I'm guessing Catholicism for Dummies, which someone else mentioned, probably has a good summary for each liturgical season. Once you get a sense of what each season is, you might google reflections based on each Sunday's readings to see how different parts of the Bible fit into the season's broader themes.

You might also want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reference book. If you have time, reading through the whole thing would teach you an enormous amount, but it would take some time to read. Each section has a little summary at the end, so you might start by just reading all of the summaries. Regardless of whether you get around to reading the whole thing, it can be very useful as a reference tool. If you don't want to buy a hard copy and/or you want to be able to search faster, you can find it online here. There's also a chance that there's a copy around the school somewhere.

It seems to me that you are having a bit of a crisis of faith /u/villaged . I'm sorry it took me so long to figure that out about you.

Joseph Smith was a guy that was far from perfect. Changing the story of the First Vision is only the tip of the iceberg. If you'd like to learn more about the man the founded Mormonism I would recomend stopping in at Deseret Book and picking up Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman. This is a book that is great for folks that are not sure about Mormonism and don't want to read any "anti-Mormon" literature. If you'd like to learn more after that you can wander into the Utah Lighthouse Ministry and speak with the awesome folks there.

Another wonderful resource for folks that have questions is New Order Mormon. The moderators of the board there work very hard to keep the discussion open and to help folks get honest and well researched answers to their questions.

As for me personally, I left Mormonism almost 10 years ago because I couldn't stay in a church that was (in my opinion after doing my own research) lying to me about its founding. I don't believe that Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus, and I think he was a con man that started a religion. I think that Brigham Young was a tyrant that forced people to do his will and he put them in situations where they had no choice but to follow his commands.

That being said, I love Mormons. Most of my family is Mormon and many of my closest friends are Mormon. I guess this is why I feel like I need to defend incorrect statements about Mormons. I'm not trying to convert or deconvert anyone, I just want the truth out there.

If you have other questions that you'd like to discuss with me please feel free to message me. Or you can find me on NOM or some of the other boards I mentioned above. I hope you are able to find peace.

Namaste

1. I am not entirely sure of the prophecy can you give some context?
   
   
2. Free will is an integral part of the Christian for He made us in His image and likeness. God has given us this beautiful gift - that we may love. Because we are created in and by Love Itself - such a gift can never be taken back. By God's grace, we can become what Jesus Christ was.
   
   
3. My suggestion is to read a little bit of Christian history (I will definitely receive some flak for what I write here). There are only 3 churches that claim apostolic succession (lineage via the bishops to the apostles them - either the 12 or the 70 or other apostles). They are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church. All other churches and confessions were created way, way after. If you need some help on this kindly PM me.
   
   
4. Don't we all? :) There's a great amount of biblical and historical evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and did claim to be divine. I highly recommend http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20case%20for%20jesus&qid=1462615674&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
   
   
5. A wonderfully written article on Genesis is http://www.pravmir.com/creation-in-genesis/
   
   I hope this helps :) Again, feel free to ask around and/or you can always PM me if you have any questions my friend :)

Others have given good suggestions, but I'll add my own thoughts. First, let me recommend "Joseph Smith--History" which you can read here, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng. That is the canonical description of the initial events (visions, angelic visitations, etc.) that led him to found the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, and was written by Joseph Smith himself in the mid 1830s. If you have downloaded the LDS "Gospel Library" app for Android/iPhone, it's also available via Scriptures->Pearl of Great Price->Joseph Smith--History. It's just a few pages long.

Secondly, I recommend the Book of Mormon, which we view as a book of ancient holy scripture like the Bible. According to Joseph Smith's account, he was given the ancient record from an angel of God and translated it miraculously in 1829 (when he was 23), then returned the ancient record to the angel when complete. It describes God's dealings with a branch of the Israelites who migrated to the Americas around 600 BC. It's named after Mormon, who (according to the book) lived around 400 AD and was instrumental in compiling the records of the various prophets before him in addition to adding his own account. This book is core to my own personal witness that he was a true prophet. It's around 450 pages long, and as scripture it is fairly dense, so it's not just something you can read in an afternoon. You can read it online here, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng, or in the "Gospel Library" app via Scriptures->Book of Mormon. Or, if you would like a hard copy, you can request a free copy here: https://www.comeuntochrist.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon-request. (Free books are made possible by donations of church members.) Someone else recommended a few chapters to begin with, which sounded good to me. I'll add a suggestion, namely 3rd Nephi chapters 11-27 where it presents an account of Jesus visiting these people after his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. And starting from the beginning is also not a bad plan. Certainly read the modern introduction and the testimony of the various witnesses who said Joseph Smith showed them the ancient plates from which the book was translated.

Thirdly, for a more in-depth historical view, I strongly recommend Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman, https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532. He's an award-winning biographer, and this is a fantastic book with a very complete description of Joseph Smith's life. (Also quite lengthy, but I found it easy to read.) To me it strikes a great balance between being respectful towards Joseph Smith and those who view him as a prophet (Bushman himself is a believer), and being historical and not afraid to talk about things Joseph Smith did which were somewhat questionable. It made Joseph Smith a very human figure to me. Most other accounts of Joseph Smith's life by contrast are very one sided--presenting only the good about Smith to argue that he was a true prophet, or presenting only the bad about Smith to argue that he was a fraud.

Good luck in your quest to learn more! Don't hesitate to ask more questions here.

Absolutely. Actually, the correct way to say this is “Is it possible to be a Christian and accept evolution?” We don’t “believe” scientific theories; we accept as (provisionally) true based on the evidence.

Most Christians do accept evolution. (and it is “most” in that the number of Christians who accept evolution is > 50%) Here is a list of statements by various Christian denominations accepting evolution: Statements from Religious Organizations, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...

The way that this is done is very simple and was summarized back in 1890:

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Christians have always held that God has two books: scripture and Creation.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

So what happens when there is an apparent conflict between the two books? Christians decided that in 1832:

British evangelicals wrote in the 1830s that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

What we have today are some people insisting that their interpretation of the Bible must be paramount. IOW, unless you accept their interpretation and reject evolution, then you can’t be Christian. That’s not the core belief of Christianity. Those core beliefs can be found in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds. Nicene Creed - Wikipedia .

They state “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker heaven and earth” or (Apostle’s) “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;” Apostles’ Creed: Traditional and Ecumenical Versions - The United Methodist Church

Those statements of belief do not specify how heaven and earth was made. Thus, as Rev McCosh has pointed out, evolution is simply how God made the diversity of life on the planet.

So the issue becomes: do Christians want some current people to require an additional belief —a belief in their interpretation of scripture contrary to God’s Creation — in order to be “Christian”?

​

Several of the most famous evolutionary biologists, who made significant contributions and additions to the theory of evolution were religious.

For example Theodosius Dobzhansky (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), who actually is one of the fathers of the modern synthesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and who coined the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Dobzhansky believed in a personal God who had created though the means of evolution.

Another famous evolutionary biologist was paleontologist Pierre Theilard de Chardin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). He participated in the discovery of Homo erectus in Asia. He was not only religious, he was a Jesuit priest.

Francis Collins, who lead the Human Genome Project at the NIH, and is fervent evangelical Christian, thinks God chose evolution as the mechanism to generate life's diversity, and speaks against Young Earth creationism.

These are just some examples. The erroneous view that religion and the theory of evolution are incompatible views largely stem from a particular flavor of Christianity present in some communities in the USA

But in principle, nothing prevents biologists from believing in God, and there is nothing special about the theory of evolution that denies the existence of God.

I also suggest the following books: Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. A Christian (Catholic) and a biologist. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Kenneth R. Miller: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books

and Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion - Kindle edition by Michael Ruse. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. Michael Ruse is an agnostic, therefore his analysis is more objective and more critical. But his result is the same: absolutely a Christian can accept evolution.

Well I think all kinds of sources are needed. "Enemies" of a religion might not be fair minded, but many intelligent critiques of religions are not by enemies. Also believers are highly unlikely to highlight (or even acknowledge) obvious problems with their religion.

The best sources are the original documents or as close to those as exist. I.e. the best critique of the Bible is the Bible, etc. Applying scientific and logical thinking (i.e. thinking which actually attempts to check itself against bias and coincidence) to original texts has left no good religion unsullied.

Or maybe the best source would always be a faithful graphic novel of the original sources. This seems to bring the wackiness of Genesis to life in a humorous way:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis-Illustrated-R-Crumb/dp/0393061027/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260227764&sr=8-4

I can't add much to what has been said by others in this thread, but I had similar experiences and feelings to you for a long time from a young age and did eventually get over them. I feel like you need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of both Catholic doctrine and the arguments for it and praxis - let me tell you, Christian praxis goes well beyond "being a decent person" to a wholesome life-view that strengthens you as an individual, as a member of your community, and in relation to God, and is inexorably linked with sound, devout doctrine. I would advise reading some Catholic apologetics or theology to start. Since you're trained in Biology you may find Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God a good starting point. Also, if you're not already, make a sincere effort to attend Mass at least weekly, go to Confession regularly, and following the Church's moral and spiritual guidelines even if they don't seem to be directly related to "being a decent person". It may feel like you're only "going through the motions," but you never know what benefit you might find! The final author I'd recommend is Søren Kierkegaard - let me be clear, his books aren't easy reads and I take issue with a lot he says, but I found his presentation of Christian praxis and ethics (particularly Either/Or) one of the most beautiful I've ever read and I credit him with giving the death knell to my doubts. I don't have the link handy, but Julia Watkin's book on him in the Outstanding Christian Thinkers Series is an excellent place to start if you find him interesting.

>Why not just call your religion Science or Darwinism?

As mentioned before, this really depends on the definition of religion. We need to be able to use this term without capturing political parties, sport team fans, charity groups, or hobby clubs.

Your question creates a false dilemma too. There are millions of Christians who agree with the general scientific consensus and Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection (evolution).

While a majority of atheists tend to support Modern evolutionary synthesis (not "Darwinism"), there's no rule that demands the odd atheist cannot reject evolution, by positing something like space aliens.

Besides that, do you really want to place science and religion on opposition? To say that the scientist is a priest? Consider which "priests" creates reliable cures to disease. Which "priests" sends men to the moon and machines to mars?



>I've also made it my personal business to seek out arguments on both ends.

This statement is too vague. Which ends? The existence of god(s)? The veracity of Evolutionary theory? The strengths and weaknesses of the Scientific Method?

Please list the books/topic you're talking about and perhaps readers here can comment better on this subject.



>Anything that's provable. I get it! I love me some science.

Well, that's not wrong, but I think you're pushing this a bit too far. A better way to put it is that for any given number of statements about the world, those with repeatable, verifiable evidence for those statements we can place a greater confidence in.



>One must choose to believe pretty much all things or basically be nihilist.

This doesn't sound right and reads in my mind as a sloppy statement (and another false dilemma). But I'm not a philosopher, so I can't exactly point out where you go wrong.

As a layman I'll try to at least mention there's a middle ground to be found between absolute gullibility and absolute skepticism. We can grant Fallibilism and move towards creating a system of thought that attempts to filter out statements that are meaningless or false, and hone statements we think are true to better model and predict the world around us.

That's why a lot of atheists appreciate the Scientific Method. Plagued as it is by certain philosophical problems (like induction), the Scientific Method tries to at least reach soundness by testing predictions of a certain hypothesis against the actual world itself.

See Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method for more.



P.S. I'm mostly a Humanist. I say "mostly" because I don't go to Humanist meetings, or tithe donations to Humanist organizations. Their listed values just seem the closest to what I'd describe to someone.

Edit: P.P.S. I think you may be interested in the book Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

Sure. Well, let me make a couple suggestions:

• My personal favorite not-an-apologetic is GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy (the link includes a free online version). That book sums up, paradoxically and romantically, Chesterton's views on God. It doesn't go out of its way to be convincing and doesn't take itself too seriously, which I love about it.
  
  
• If you're looking for convincing yet personal (and not too lofty) accounts of a couple of scientists who are believers, I recommend theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne's Exploring Reality or geneticist Francis Collins' The Language of God.
  
  
• The best logical arguments for God that have been around for centuries (and have been pretty well defended by the likes of men like Victor Reppert and William Lane Craig) were developed by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. I suggest reading Peter Kreeft's easier-to-swallow shorter version.
  
  
• I believe that Craig's Reasonable Faith does a very admirable and scholarly work of defending the faith philosophically.
  
  
• William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience have nothing to do with apologetics, but have affirmed my faith in God personally. I add it here just to demonstrate, I suppose, that faith is highly personal and that God is revealed as well in the beauty and mystery of the poetic and artistic as He is in nature.

I. Sure, some forms of theism are coherent (Christianity is not one of those forms, for what it's worth; the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma being a couple of big problems), but not all coherent ideas are true representations of the world; any introductory course in logic will demonstrate that.

II. The cosmological argument is a deductive argument. Deductive arguments are only as strong as their premises. The premises of the cosmological argument are not known to be true. Therefore, the cosmological argument should not be considered true. If you think you know a specific formulation of the cosmological argument that has true premises, please present it. I'm fully confident I can explain how we know such premises are not true.

III. There is no doubt that the teleological argument has strong persuasive force, but that's a very different thing than "being real evidence" or "something that should have strong persuasive force." I explain apparent cosmological fine-tuning as an entirely anthropic effect: if the constants were different, we wouldn't be here to observe them, therefore we observe them as they are.

IV. This statement is just false on its face. Lawrence Krauss has a whole book about the potential ex nihilo mechanisms (plural!) for the creation of the universe that are entirely consistent with the known laws of physics. (Note that the idea of God is not consistent with the known laws of physics, since he, by definition, supersedes them.)

V. This is just a worse version of argument III. Naturalistic evolution has far, far more explanatory power than theism. To name my favorite examples: the human blind spot is inexplicable from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution; likewise, the path of the mammalian nerves for the tongue traveling below the heart makes no sense from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution. Evolution routinely makes predictions that are tested to be true, whether it means predicting where fossils with specific characteristics will be found or how fruit fly mating behavior changes after populations have been separated and exposed to different environments for 30+ generations. It's worth emphasizing that it is totally normal to look at the complexity of the world and assume that it must have a designer...but it's also totally normal to think that electrons aren't waves. Intuition isn't a reliable way to discern truth. We must not be seduced by comfortable patterns of thought. We must think more carefully. When we think more carefully, it turns out that evolution is true and evolution requires no god.

VI. There are two points here: 1) the universe follows rules, and 2) humans can understand those rules. Point (1) is easily answered with the anthropic argument: rules are required for complex organization, humans are an example of complex organization, therefore humans can only exist in a physical reality that is governed by rules. Point (2) might not even be true. Wigner's argument is fun and interesting, but it's actually wrong! Mathematics are not able to describe the fundamental behavior of the physical world. As far as we know, Quantum Field Theory is the best possible representation of the fundamental physical world, and it is known to be an approximation, because, mathematically, it leads to an infinite regress. For a more concrete example, there is no analytic solution for the orbital path of the earth around the sun! (This is because it is subject to the gravitational attraction of more than one other object; its solution is calculated numerically, i.e. by sophisticated guess-and-check.)

VII. This is just baldly false. I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" and Stanislas Dehaene's "Consciousness and the Brain" for a coherent model of a materialist mind and a wealth of evidence in support of the materialist mind.

VIII. First of all, the idea that morality comes from god runs into the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma pretty hard. And the convergence of all cultures to universal ideas of right and wrong (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc.) are rather easily explained by anthropology and evolutionary psychology. Anthropology and evolutionary psychology also predict that there would be cultural divergence on more subtle moral questions (like the Trolley Problem, for example)...and there is! I think that makes those theories better explanations for moral sentiments than theism.

IX. I'm a secular Buddhist. Through meditation, I transcend the mundane even though I deny the existence of any deity. Also, given the diversity of religious experience, it's insane to suggest that religious experience argues for the existence of the God of Catholicism.

X. Oh, boy. I'm trying to think of the best way to persuade you of all the problems with your argument, here. So, here's an exercise for you: take the argument you have written in the linked posts and reformat them into a sequence of syllogisms. Having done that, highlight each premise that is not a conclusion of a previous syllogism. Notice the large number of highlighted premises and ask yourself for each, "What is the proof for this premise?" I am confident that you will find the answer is almost always, "There is no proof for this premise."

XI. "...three days after his death, and against every predisposition to the contrary, individuals and groups had experiences that completely convinced them that they had met a physically resurrected Jesus." There is literally no evidence for this at all (keeping in mind that Christian sacred texts are not evidence for the same reason that Hindu sacred texts are not evidence). Hell, Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Christ" even has a strong argument that Jesus didn't exist! (I don't agree with the conclusion of the argument, though I found his methods and the evidence he gathered along the way to be worthy of consideration.)

-----

I don't think that I can dissuade you of your belief. But, I do hope to explain to you why, even if you find your arguments intuitively appealing, they do not conclusively demonstrate that your belief is true.

It's an excellent choice. Like others have said, reading more than one book with different viewpoints on Christian fundamentals is a good idea, which is why I love threads like this, so thanks for posting.

Here are some suggestions from my own explorations in the last few years.

---

Mere Christianity

What Christians Believe by the venerable Bishop Ken Myers (im_just_throwing_this_out_there)

Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul, for more of a basic Reformed theology perspective

Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth, for a Reformed-ish (emphasis on the "ish") perspective sometimes called "neo orthodoxy". It's a summary of a much (much) larger work, and it's probably the toughest read out of the other books I'm recommending, because it encapsulates quite a bit of his very complex thought in a pretty short space.

The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware for an eye-opening perspective and well-written about a tradition I knew nothing about from my American, Baptist/evangelical upbringing.

The Catholic Religion by Vernon Staley, which is actually about the Anglican church. This was recommended to me by an Anglican redditor.

Someone already recommended Simply Christian by N.T. Wright. I'm about halfway through this right now. Being a regular on this sub, where his theology is pretty popular, I wouldn't say it's mind-blowing to me, but your mileage may vary. It's certainly a good read so far; his writing style is clear and easy to read (I think even easier than Lewis), and it seems like a good jumping off point for further exploration (he has other books I want to read, and I figured I'd start with his introductory book first).

Well, the proof is in the pudding, not in the list of ingredients on the side of the packaging of the pudding. To me, by the time I came to the point where I was asking myself what I really believe about the Eucharist, I had for the most part already seen enough to take the word of, not only the Church, but the earliest Christians, considering that's all we have to really go on. I mean, we're not just talking about some random people here but 2nd generation Christians, those who were taught by the Apostles themselves. If that is to come under scrutiny, then why not any other number of things they tell us? Why accept Christ's divinity or the doctrine of the Trinity or the Resurrection? All these things which were taught by the Apostles.

At some point, you become convinced of not just single subject matters, but of the legitimacy of the Church as a whole, you believe in the Church - not the individuals per se, but the body of teachings, and, more importantly, the transformative power of the way of living.

I would encourage you to more fully explore the links given in the thread I linked to, there is a wealth of information there which can take several months to take in and digest. And don't get hung up on single things like this, continue to investigate the Church as a whole. Have you read this book yet? It is probably the best introduction to the Church, both theologically and socially/historically.

Peace in Christ.

I will give my response to your post. I read the other comments, thinking that I would just add to what they said without repeating what had already been said, but realized that then my own comment would become fragmented if I took that into account, so I will ignore what others have said.

 

> I lied to the elders by saying I read it when I got baptised after they asked if I read the bible everyday.

I think this is a very common lie. I don't think many elders have read the Bible either.

In fact, every single time some Jehovah's Witness say "I know this is the truth, because I have investigated the evidence myself" they are lying.

Another very common lie: "I don't masturbate"

The truth is, almost everyone masturbates, most people have not read the Bible, and every single one that has actually investigated the evidence for themself has left the religion, at least mentally.

 

> I’m a slow reader (I think I might have adhd. Should I see a doctor?) and I’m up to Genesis 3.

Going to a doctor could be a good idea, perhaps. I don't know the extent of your problem.

Personally, when I haven't been reading anything for a long time, in the way I read the Bible, then it will be slower. But then if I keep at it for a few days or a week I will speed up. Sometimes if I read two hours straight, the first hour I will read with difficulty, but the second hour I read much better. Another thing that could speed up your reading is if you don't speak the words, neither out loud nor in your head, because it takes time to "pronounce" the words. But reading text without even pronouncing it mentally is not something everyone knows how to do, and I don't know how to teach it.

Though, even if you only read the text in the same speed as you speak normally, you will still easily read through the Bible in a year, unless your life is busy.

 

> I’m very very confused about Genesis 1 and 2 so far as it seems like it contradicts itself so much.

My understanding of the scientific explanation is that Genesis 2 was written first by one author, and later Genesis 1 was written by another author and added to the beginning of Genesis, and the theologies of those authors are different.

The first author, who wrote Genesis 2 about Adam and Eve, thought, according to my own understanding of the text, that humans were first created as mere animals, and then they gained "knowledge of good and bad" and became more than animals. This was why they were naked without feeling any shame, because they were just as any other animals. The author was a child of his time and culture, and thought it was uncivilized to be naked, unaware that it is a cultural idea not universal to humans.

This might also explain why the snake could speak: the author might have thought that as Adam and Eve were just mere animals, they could speak the same language as animals. Though there are other possible explanations.

Christians usually describe the events in Eden as "the Fall", but this is not supported by the text. Instead, it is "the Ascension". The two trees represent two qualities of gods that set gods apart from animals. The "knowledge of good and bad" represents the author's understanding of the mental difference between humans and animals, which he believed originally only belonged to the gods.

Jehovah lied to Adam and Eve about the tree, essentially saying that it was poisonous, to keep them from eating and ascending to the level of the gods. The snake revealed the truth, and they ate and became as gods. Jehovah felt threatened by this, and expelled them from Eden to prevent them from gaining the second quality of gods: eternal life, by eating from the tree of life.

This was the author's explanation why humans are partly divine, by having knowledge as gods, and partly animal, by being mortal as animals.

The second author, who wrote Genesis 1, disagreed. He thought God created the humans in the image of God from the outset. There was never any time when humans were only mere animals, and no "Ascension". There was never a "tree of knowledge".

The second author plagiarized a pre-existing creation myth, and made some changes. One of the changes was that he removed a battle between God and the cosmic waters, because according to the second author, God is omnipotent. The original audience knew the pre-existing myth, and could notice the difference, but most modern readers don't know about the pre-existing story.

Genesis 1:1-3 should read something like

> When God began to create sky and land—the land being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of Tehom and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

In the original story, there was a battle between the gods and Tehom. In Hebrew, "Tehom" is a proper noun, a name, even though most translations hide this.

The Watchtower Society brags about not hiding the fact that "YHWH" is a name, and transcribes it as "Jehovah", but they are still guilty of hiding the name "Tehom" and other names in the Bible such as "El". (Also, as others have stated, the Watchtower inserts the name "Jehovah" into the Bible where "YHWH" is not found, like in the New Testament.)

This is just how I understand it, though it is also based on what I have heard from scholars. I may have gotten details wrong.

When I was PIMI and read it not too carefully, I thought that the story about Adam and Eve "zoomed in" on the sixth day of creation. Thus, Genesis 1 described the creation of heaven and earth and humans, while Genesis 2 took a closer look at the creation of humans. Now I don't believe this is correct.

If one tries to read Genesis as a single coherent story, to the limited degree it is possible, then this is probably how I would read it today: First God created sky, land (a flat earth in an earth-sized snow globe), and humans in six (literal) days, then he rested on the seventh day, then after an unspecified time, Jehovah created Adam, that started out as a mere animal, but then ascended. Thus Adam and Eve were not the first humans, though it seems the first humans were gone, because there were no one to tilt the ground.

 

> Anyway, what translation should I use? ... Of course, there’s the King Lebron James Version, the American standard version and a bunch of others too. I want an actual physical copy of the bible too, I’m a young person but I’m so sick of looking at technology all the time so I’d prefer an actual bible. I also don’t want a biased translation or one that may have just added or removed things from the bible where they see fit. I want a bible as close to the original texts as possible.

I like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) (specifically as The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 5th ed.) and the New Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh (NJPS) (as The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed.).

However, there is no translation without bias, or even without mistranslations. At least not one of the whole Bible in a single volume.

But there are definitively better ones and worse ones.

Some things that speak in favour of NRSV:

• NRSV is an Ecumenical translation, involving Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, and the Old Testament involves a Jewish translator as well. This means that when they disagree about the interpretation, they tend to stick to the more literal reading that they all agree on. It still has bias, but not as much as translations made by a single denomination.
  
  
• NRSV is created by non-fundamentalists, which means a higher acceptance of a scientific understanding of the text.
  
  
• NRSV is on the spectrum towards a formal translation, which means it is closer to a word-for-word translation. This means it has less smooth English, but also less room for bias.
  
  
• NRSV is recommended by academics, both by secular scholars and non-fundamentalist Christian scholars.
  
  When I first started researching different translations to decide which ones I should get, I thought "Using 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' is superior to using 'the LORD', so I will start looking at translations that use 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'", but I soon realized that the winner was NRSV despite not using 'Jehovah/Yahweh'.
  
  The Watchtower brags about getting "YHWH" right, but the name "YHWH" is only about 1% of the total number of words. Getting 1% of the words right, while being dodgy about the remaining 99% isn't that impressive.
  
  Sometimes the gender neutral language of NRSV is criticized. An example of the gender neutral language is that in the New Testament the phrase "brothers and sisters" is used where many mainstream translations use "brothers". This isn't necessarily wrong, because the Greek word could refer to an all-male group or a mixed gender group. But some have said that NRSV occasionally use gender neutral language where the intended meaning is not gender neutral.

The Jesus Storybook Bible is my favorite. My church gives it out at every new birth. It would be great for age five, age 8 probably too. It's focus is on putting the entire Bible in the context of the gospel.

The Story Bible is another really great option. It has many more stories than the Jesus Storybook Bible (130 vs. 40) and has gorgeous illustrations. Your kids are right at the best age for it too.

I also highly recommend the What's in the Bible video series. It does a fantastic job of putting the different parts of the Bible in context. It's aimed at kids (there's puppets) but most grownups would benefit a great deal from watching it too. You can buy DVDs or an online streaming subscription.

>Also, while we're at it, any recommendations for study bibles for teen girls (13 and 16) as well as my wife and I?

The ESV Study Bible is pretty good. Most study Bibles aimed specifically at teenagers aren't very good in my opinion. I think they can handle a "grown-up" study Bible. If they need a specific teenager resource, my favorite is Deep Down Faith, a 24-week devotional by Cornelius Plantinga.

Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology defines God's immutability as follows:

> God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations. (p. 163)

Note that this is just one definition, and the various systems of thought within Christianity may have slight variations. There are also side debates on what it means for God to "change his mind" or to have knowledge of future events.

What I think is most crucial to Christianity is that God is unchangeable in his essence (he has always been God and will never cease to be God) and his attributes (he is always loving, just, merciful, independent, truthful, all-knowing, and so on, and these attributes are perfectly expressed at all times). This allows God the freedom to act differently in response to human decisions, yet his actions are always in accordance with his attributes and ultimate purpose for the universe, and his omnipotence ensures that his actions will have the desired effect. The Holy Spirit, being a member of the Trinity, would also possess these qualities.

Mormonism deviates from this significantly by asserting that at one time God was just a man, thereby denying immutability of being. The doctrine of eternal progression, as far as I understand it, means that the Mormon God's attributes are always improving, and that God today is better than what he was yesterday. What's left looks nothing like the God of Christianity or Judaism. If Mormon God can change in one direction, what guarantee do we have that he won't change in the other direction and start getting worse? What's to stop Mormon God from being de-exalted back to a man?

When asking questions about the nature of God, it's important to realize that Christianity and Judaism disagree on nearly every point with Mormonism. Claiming to be a restoration of the Christian church doesn't give Mormonism the right to rewrite the definition of God for standard Christianity.

I really like history books that don't at first seem to be history books, but are explorations of societies sometimes seen through the lens of a single important concept or product. For instance, Mark Kurlansky has several books such as Salt; A World History, Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, The Basque History of the World, Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea that teach more history, and more important history than is usually taught in US public schools.

History need not be rote memorization of dates and figures. It can, and should be a fun exploration of ideas and how those ideas shaped civilizations. It can also be an exploration of what did not make it into the history books as Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament or his Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels attest.

I don't wish to come across as too glib about this, but I feel like the average person might well retain more useful knowledge reading a book like A History of the World in 6 Glasses than if they sat through a semester of freshman history as taught by most boring, lame generic high schools. I feel like often the best way to understand history is to come at it tangentially. Want to understand the US Constitution? Study the Iroquois confederacy. Want to understand the French? Study cuisine and wine. Want to understand China? Study international trade. And so it goes. Sometimes the best history lessons come about from just following another interest such as astronomy or math or cooking. Follow the path until curiosity is sated. Knowledge will accumulate that way. ;-)

The title of your post immediately reminded me of a Scott Hahn talk I heard last year, and then I saw your reference to him—so maybe you've already heard or read this story. If not, here it is from his talk, as I remember it: as a young Protestant minister gradually pulled into Catholicism, he was in much the same boat as you. His wife was dead-set against. She was very worried about him, and went behind his back to talk a mutual friend, a fellow minister, and urge him to do everything in his power to save Scott from Catholicism. So this friend started reading all the books that Scott had been reading. He and Scott's wife would look for the logical holes and plot how to undermine Scott's conversion. Much drama followed...but within two years, both Scott's wife and her co-conspirator had joined Scott in converting to Catholicism.

​

You've said your vows to your wife, before God. You are committed to her, and she to you, until death do you part, whether you like it or not. If she won't go to Catholic church with you, that's ok. If she leaves you, that's ok too—you are committed to living chastely and honoring your marriage vows even if she leaves you, and doing everything you can (short of rejecting the Truth) to win her back.


But that's getting a bit melodramatic. You have concerns about Mary? Share those with your wife, instead of trying to poorly defend Marian doctrines you don't understand. It's ok not to have the answer, and if I know anything about marital communications (married seven years), saying "I don't know" is more likely than anything to get your wife on your side talking about the challenges with you more openly.


Your wife doesn't need to convert at the same time as you. But if you have converted in your heart, get yourself in RCIA and start going to Catholic church. If you want to really live your commitment both to God and to your marriage, go to your usual Sunday church with your family for the foreseeable future, and then go alone to a Catholic mass. That might take all Sunday morning, so you could perhaps go to Catholic mass on a Saturday afternoon if it fits your schedule better.


Anyway, that's a bunch of unsolicited advice. You asked for prayer and book recommendations. Let's pray together: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

​

And here's a book recommendation, since you like Dr. Hahn, in case you haven't come across it yet: Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God.

> I come from a very rural area of England but in my town alone we have an Anglican (High Church) church, a Catholic church, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, an Eastern Orthodox church, potentially some others I do not know about, and also there is a society of friends here.

Why not visit them all?

> However Works of Mercy are also an important part of the Catholic Church, so that point alone doesn't really help me decide, even though to me it's important that I am involved with a church which values Works of Mercy.

Works of Mercy should be something all Christians agree is important!

> The biggest issue in choosing which church to go to is that because I was not brought up religious at all and my family are so anti-religious I really don't know much about it, and have not explored my faith at all with anyone else so don't really know how I stand on a lot of the important divides between the denominations.

I suppose step one is learning what all these different groups teach, then. This is a surprisingly good introduction. For something more in depth, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is very good. If you really want to go in depth, A History of Doctrine (this is volume one of five) is pretty much comprehensive.

Of course, you shouldn't just sit in your house reading books. Get up and go visit all those churches you've mentioned. Speak with the priest/pastor/minister and ask them your questions about their church and it's teachings!

> mainly as evident in the fact that the Quran manuscripts we have today exactly match the earliest manuscripts we found so far,

I think there's a good possibility that this is also a lie (or irrelevant). Pardon me for sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but from what little I know it seems that there are experts who disagree with your assessment (or your sources).

Ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq, from whom I've so far read far too little, claims that there was a period early in the history of Islam where the Koran (and the Hadith, I guess - it's been a while) underwent a fair amount of change. This is pretty much analogous to the fate of the Bible in the time before (and probably a little after) the Council of Nicea. It wasn't until this process had run for a bit that the Powers That Be (long after Mohammed) put their foot down and declared a moratorium on changes.

My source for this was Warraq's chapter in Hitchens' The Portable Atheist. If interested, you can surely work your way a bit closer to this horse's mouth.

But having written all this, I realize this whole discussion is pointless. Just yesterday I had a similar discussion with a Christian about the thousands of (allegedly faithful) copies of the Bible. But the point is, who cares if they were transmitted faithfully if the very first original was already bullshit?

We don't even know very well who the original sources were; there's some serious tension between the claim that all those surahs were written by Mo or transcribed from his personal dictation, and the fact that heaps and bundles of these things kept popping up from various sources long after he'd died. The process by which these writings were "found" and assembled looks far from reliable to me.

Finally, again, miracles. In order to accept the Koran's miracles as true, we'd have to

• reject the miracle stories of all conflicting religious stories;
  
• accept that these particular miracle stories were truthfully recorded by reliable eyewitnesses (of unknown identity); and
  
• concede the possibility that miracles actually happened and, to be consistent with the teachings of the Koran, still happen today, regardless of the fact that no miracle has been adequately verified in human history.
  
  Like all religions, Islam faces a huge burden of proof here.

If I can let you know, you're not alone. I'm 32 and hopefully next year my gf of 4 years and I are planning on getting married. It isn't easy, but waiting is possible. Being with likeminded friends helps. And perspective takes time. In the bubble of school a lot of things look fun. But in the real world, with real consequences, not so much. These things do have emotional and psychological consequences that you will take with you into your future relationships. Waiting is a means of protecting those future relationships.

Now for those questions, yes they can get annoying. But you don't have to reinvent the wheel. There have been many smart Christian writers, theologians, artists, philosophers, apologists, etc... who have given these issues a lot of thought and you would do well to get acquainted with them. I'd recommend something like Grudem's Systematic Theology for basic doctrine. For specific questions, Tim Keller's The Reason For God is pretty popular, and I'm liking philosopher Douglas Groothuis's Christian Apologetics.

1. Read Matthew and Luke through three times.
   
   
2. Then read all four Gospels.
   
   
3. Then re-read all four Gospels in parallel with the Praxapostolos (Acts/Epistles/Revelation). However many chapters of the Gospels you read, read the same number of Praxapostolos chapters.
   
   
4. When you finish #3, start #3 again, but now add a Psalm a day. Maybe break up Psalm 117 into 3 pieces.
   
   
5. In parallel with #4, you might add a chapter or two from the Wisdom Books each day. Make sure your Bible has the Deuterocanonical books Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). These books were included in the Bible canon by all Church councils in the first millennium and are very valuable. I recommend the Orthodox Study Bible or Oxford Annotated RSV (not the NRSV) with "Apocrypha". The Wisdom Books are Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach.
   
   
6. Then, in parallel again, you might add a chapter or two of the remaining books of the Old Testament, starting with Genesis and reading through all of the prophets.
   
   I would also recommend you get some first millennium commentaries. For the Gospels you might get the set of Theophylact's commentaries, or consult the commentaries of John Chrysostom (Matthew, John) or Cyril of Alexandria (Luke) online.
   
   I recommend first millennium commentaries because (1) you will find that they are the source of many of the key ideas expressed in later commentaries; and (2) they come from a time before there was a separate "Roman Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Church" or various Protestant churches, all with conflicting interpretations of the Bible.
   

I think Pope Francis is sincere, but I also think that it is more complicated than merely "doing what is needed to heal the breach." The Schism is as much about people as it is about theology. Human beings and the relationships between them are complicated at the best of times. The self-understanding of these two communities has been distinct for so long that it is easier to argue than to find common ground. There are currently "Byzantine" Churches in communion with Rome and it hasn't worked out terribly well for a lot of them (though there have been bright spots).

If I might be so bold, the "liberal" people (I don't like that word, but I don't have another one) in both camps can hardly see the point in being separate, though they would like to change things in both their Churches in other ways that would make them unrecognizable. The challenge is to have the "conservative" people satisfied with the process and expected result of re-approachment, enough to establish common cause between them. A traditional Catholic has to see that the Orthodox showing up won't force them to budge on things that they are fighting with progressives in their own Church about. The same with the Orthodox. The famous resistor of "false union" Bishop Mark of Ephesus doesn't just appeal to those seeking to preserve the Orthodox faith, but also traditionally committed Catholics.

And what happens if the Catholics are willing to compromise on a great many things, but the Orthodox get difficult on some point? Would not the Catholics feel abused? "We've come all this way and it hurts us and you still won't give up on point 9?" This has been the problem with the Miaphysites. It looks like all the theological issues have been resolved, but we seem to be left with Saints and Anathemas on both sides that have rooted the problem beyond reconciliation. We seem to be "right there" except we have beloved saints on both sides that effectively said, "you can never go there." What do we do with these saints? How do we understand them?

As for something to read. There are several books depending on your interest in using big words. :)

Lossky would be the heavy weight: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/

Though I much prefer Zizioulas, more approachable and puts apophatic theology in balance: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Communion-Personhood-Contemporary-Theologians/dp/0881410292/

Of course Bishop Timothy Ware's book is the usual "internet standard recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583/

If you want something very approachable (almost no technical terms) and a little more "what does this mean" you might try an introduction to sacramental theology in general: http://www.amazon.com/For-Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/

And probably the least "theological" but I think this is both my wife and my favorite: http://www.amazon.com/Bread-Water-Wine-Oil-Experience/dp/1888212918/

That's fair. I can't say I believe in the Christianity I was raised in either. I was raised in a more fundamentalist atmosphere and have become more of an academic Christian.

I'm not sure if I think morality is relative, but I am pretty sure our understanding of it is relative. Maybe there is some morality that exists outside of context, but once we start applying it wholesale everything gets hazier. Nothing can be applied wholesale; we can only understand things in context because we only exist in context. But this may be my love for postmodern philosophy talking.

If you are still interested in studying the Bible, I would encourage looking at modern academic commentaries/articles (getting suggestions from a professor or pastor that you trust might be helpful) as well as exploring other more foreign Christian theologies, such as Eastern Orthodoxy. Some places to start might be a basic book on exegesis such as The Bible Doesn't Have to Be Hard to Read and good article on the JEDP theory. On the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy, some good accessible books are The Orthodox Way and For the Life of the World.

Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!

Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God

Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Francis Collin's The Language of God

Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus

Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair

Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism

Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument

>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.

Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.

What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?

>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.

Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.

Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".

Hey, well I would expect them to biased towards the Bible, as people who believe the Bible want to support it :) Just as atheists want to tear it down. Do you think an atheist would want to explain the contradictions in the Bible? Of course not, they want to find theories that will discredit it. (confirmation bias, we all have it, I know atheists say they don't but I can see how mad often they are at God, that is a bias in itself.) Perhaps the Bible is just mankind's way of trying to understand God, by assigning him human qualities.

I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the contradictions:

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/bible.htm

http://www.comereason.org/bible-contradictions-explained.asp

Ok, I wish I could address all of this but I am pretty new to the subject myself! I just try to keep an open mind and I am always reading and researching. I don't 100% believe the Bible is true, I think I will always have questions, but right now God makes a lot more sense to me than that the universe came into being out of nowhere. I too have trouble comprehending the evil and suffering in the world, but the fact that there IS evil doesn't mean that there isn't a God. A God who can create all this knows a lot more than we do, and maybe he has a much better plan than we can comprehend. I recommend The Privileged Planet (book and DVD) which describes the extreme fine tuning of our planet and our universe.

Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller is on my (ever growing) to read list.

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8MWM3P3QW7V54VQ94S6F

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669

Here is a good interview, make sure you read page 4 where he talks about the Bible.

http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-1/

I really do recommend John Lennox also

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+lennox

Have you attended any churches? I've found them to be so very different from the Kingdom hall. It gives you an entirely different idea of what it is to be a Christian and worship God (I find church enjoyable, uplifting and encouraging).

Why not just start covering a particular book of scripture together? You could go through a short book, and anyone with a Bible would be plenty capable of following along.

You could also do a study on Systematic Theology. That doesn't have to be big and complicated; you could just look at certain interesting topics, like the canon of scripture, or the authority of scripture, or something like that. If you are interested in that, I would recommend Systematic Theology by Wayne grudem because it is fairly thorough, but also very clearly put for anyone to read.

I think it is great that you are wanting to welcome non-believers as well! Still though, I would encourage you to keep your discussions centered on Christ and the Gospel, regardless of whatever specifics you may be discussing. In other words, be welcoming to non-believers, but don't feel like you need to program specifically for them. Just be consistent in proclaiming Christ and the Gospel - that has value for everyone.

>new source that disputes the existence of Jesus.

There are no sources which dispute the existence of Moses or Romulus but that doesn't mean we should start accepting them as real historical figures.

>Jesus and other similarly or worse attested characters like Hannibal and Alexander the Great.

Alexander is way better attested than Jesus, we even have more evidence of Pontius Pilate than Historical Jesus.

>no respected expert in the field believe in it.

There are several, most prominent ones are Robert M. Price who holds double doctorate in NT studies and Thomas L Broody who's also a biblical scholar.

>Neither Koresh or Jim Jones had a large following

At its peak Peoples temple had a following in upward of 20,000 so i don't think its a right comparison but yeah Koresh or Marshal Applewhite kinda fits the bill.

>but is more rickety than any of them. It doesn't explain why or how. There are no sources supporting it.

I suggest you read some works on Christ Myth theory because all those point were covered by many authors, here's a good introductory article and as for books, Richard Carrier's On the historicity of Jesus is pretty comprehensive and there's also The Christ Myth by Arthur Drews which you can download freely.

This is a particular difficulty in Mormon history--for a long time anything put in print seemed to have an extreme bias one way or another. In recent years there seems to be a greater effort in Mormon Studies in adhering to better historical standards that I think result in better, more accurate, and less biased narratives. Personally, I don't think I'd use Krakauer as a source because he's a good writer, but not a historian.

I think better sources to use would be:

Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling (2005). Bushman was a history professor at Columbia University and is a Mormon. His bio of Smith will likely be considered the "standard" bio for years to come. It's a bit longish, but I think it's very readable regardless if you are Mormon or not.

Robert V. Remini's Joseph Smith (2002) is a quick read--a lot shorter than Bushman and a good overview. Remini was a history professor at the University of Illinois and is not a Mormon. He's best known for his massive biography on Andrew Jackson, a contemporary of Smith.

Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows My History (1945) is old, but is still often referenced. Brodie was a history professor at UCLA. She was raised Mormon, but was later excommunicated. Her book is a psychobiography which is a historical approach that has largely fallen out of fashion these days.

I'd definitely recommend looking at josephsmithpapers.org. It is an on-going publication project that is putting digital images and transcriptions of all of Joseph Smith's personal papers as well as the papers produced by his clerks under his direction. You'll find letters, revelations, early editions of the Book of Mormon, and all sorts of stuff! I'd take a look at Smith's own personal history written in 1832, and his history begun in 1838 and continued over the years even after his death and finally finished in 1856. (For more info on these specific documents, be sure to read the text under "Historical Introduction" in the bottom half of the pages.)

Another good narrative on that site is the book written by Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. You can find the published 1853 version here. (Skip most of the early stuff--she spends a lot of pages talking about her own parents and childhood. While interesting, it's probably not pertinent for your paper.)

The site also has a good overview of Joseph Smith's life and his papers written by Richard Bushman and Dean Jessee too.

There are a lot of academic journals out there too that will have articles about various aspects of Joseph Smith's life or of his contemporaries (in no particular order): BYU Studies, Journal of Mormon History, John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, Mormon Historical Studies. You can find articles in BYU's Studies in Mormon History database and I bet JSTOR or other places probably have some of them.

If you need help finding info on a specific aspect on Smith, feel free to send me a message and I'll try to help best I can.

They aren't Orthodox theologians, but:

• Christianity: The First 3000 Years - can't beat this for an academic, accessible, comprehensive, and fair point of view of every corner of the Christian world in history. Literally every corner. You can skip chapters/parts that don't apply to Orthodoxy if you wish.
  
  
• A Short History of Byzantium -
  focuses more on the Byzantine Empire and so leaves out a lot of stuff, but it does cover the Ecumenical Councils and a lot of Orthodox history. There is also a harder-to-find 3 part trilogy of this abridged book.
  
  Orthodox Writings:
  
  
• Bishop Ware's The Orthodox Church has an overview, but it's pretty light.
  
  
• Orthodox Alaska provides a historical look at the history of Orthodoxy in Alaska, which is pretty great (and super interesting).
  
  There are probably not many good histories of the Church by Orthodox theologians, to be honest.
  
  

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

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

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

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

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

The scholar who best unpacks these questions is professor John Walton
from Wheaton. I really think you should read his books or listen to his lectures.

Professor Tim Mackie from The Bible Project is really good at communicating biblical scholarship. Please check out The Bible Project on Youtube if you haven't yet. It's literally the best Bible resource I've found, either for new Christians or mature. Here is a relevant, incredible podcast episode on Genesis, science, and faith.


For questions of science and faith, [Biologos](
https://biologos.org/) is the best place for you to be. Check out the contributers there. My favorite is N.T. Wright. He is the leading New Testament scholar in the world, and tackles all sorts of questions with the appropriate nuance and wisdom. The Ask N.T. Wright Anything podcast is a great start.

Agreed I 100% reccommend the ESV

This Study Bible is absolutely amazing for such a great price! It has so much study content to better understand the bible, and is great for people new to english as well

However KJV and NIV are prefectly fine, KJV is quite hard to understand, because it uses much older slang I guess is the word. NIV is great as well, I just find ESV more useful. I do see many teenagers and grade schoolers utilizing NIV as it is found in bibles like the message and a popular teenage bible that I forget the name of.

In conclusion I reccomend ESV :)

I can't say one single piece of evidence (or a single study) convinced me, but I can summarize the various pieces of evidence as biogeography - the fact that we see similar (related) creatures living in the same geographic area and even some creatures on different continents with similar features in places where plate tectonics would lead us to expect similarities - and genetics, most notably the human vitamin c gene, which is defective.


The evidence for evolution is not measured in single studies, but in the weight of the collective evidence. For an overview of the collective evidence across many fields, this book by Jerry Coyne lays out the general case for the factuality of evolution. If you read it you do need to be ready for some Dawkins-esque posturing - he wrote a book on why faith and science are incompatible, but the information in the book is very good. For a basic summary, this Khan Academy page does a good job.

Finally, institutions like the Biologos institute convinced me that it's Biblically okay to believe in Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation? Whichever one posits God's active involvement in creation via evolution.). The final "nail in the coffin" was The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton.

Actually, testing your faith as an outsider is necessary for being able to determine its objective truth and hardly "a waste." For instance, suppose you were raised as a Catholic, baptized as an infant. Ask yourself, how do other reasonable people first become believers, or insiders, if from the outside they can't understand Christianity? Which comes first, faith or understanding? If, as a nonbelieving outsider, someone cannot understand the Christian faith, then how does God expect them to reasonably come to faith in the first place? How do you get from being an outsider to being an insider as a rational, thinking, skeptical adult? If you were raised Catholic from childhood then you know that as children we had not yet developed critical thinking faculties to question what our parents told us. We didn't know any better. Isn't it unfair to bring up a child in that environment? How many Catholic parents have adequately questioned their own faith and investigated its truth content before raising their children Catholic?

How many Catholics would accept Catholicism if it were forced upon them when they were 18 years old? Wouldn't we have asked some questions about what our parents told us? If someone came along and tried presenting you a brand new religious paradigm, for example, Scientology or Mormonism, at your age you would, as an outsider, take a critical, skeptical stance against accepting those views. At some point along the line, as we become adults, we need to critically examine what we were taught as children. Doubt and skepticism are learned virtues and as we learn to question, we become thinking adults. But strangely most people don't seem to question their religious faiths which seem too obvious and have become too ingrained in us, usually because they are a part of the culture we live in. Not only that, your faith has ingrained in you a fear of Hell if you deviate from it (of course there is no evidence for the existence of heaven or hell, either), although if you do deviate from it, you can always return later.

Given the abundance of religions around the globe, the probability that the one you happened to have been brought up in is true is highly unlikely. Basically all religions teach that they are the one true religion. At best, only one can be true, as you pointed out earlier. At worst, they are all false. The only rational way to test one's culturally adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider, a nonbeliever, with the same level of reasonable skepticism that a believer already uses when examining the other religious faiths he or she rejects. If you can do that and show how Catholicism is still objectively true, then Catholicism is the one true religion, and all nonbelievers could rationally convert. The problem is that there is just no evidence to support its truth. Again, Richard Carrier's Proving History and its companion On the Historicity of Jesus are the most comprehensive scholarly treatments on the existence of Jesus. Carrier has done a lot of scholarship on the early history of the church and the facts do not hold up the way that the Catholic church would make you think they do. Not to mention that "God's true church" has been involved in some nasty terrible acts throughout history and held some embarrassingly mistaken views about reality, and it is not the paragon of moral virtue that an institution with divine inspiration would exhibit. I would challenge you to question your faith as an outsider. Read those books by Richard Carrier, for instance. Read The Outsider Test For Faith by John Loftus and question your faith as an outsider would. And if you still hold to Catholicism as the one true religion, then you have not lost anything. But if you are convinced by reasonable, skeptical arguments that Catholicism is mistaken at bare minimum or at most totally false, then you have gained a truer perspective on reality.

I am a consensus reader across text traditions. Therefore, one Bible doesn't cut it for me.

• My own Church publishes the Orthodox Study Bible ($50), but Amazon has it for cheaper. What's unique about it is that it is a mostly Septuagint translation. The psalms follow our numbering instead of Vulgate numbering (and you get Psalm 151).
  
• I would recommend a more purely Vulgate translation--New Jerusalem ($30, typically available from Catholic bookstores, as it is their translation) is actually pretty solid in that regard.
  
• And then, I'd recommend something out of the Masoretic Text tradition: This one, specifically. While I have problems with the NRSV (and its psalter in particular), this particular publication of it is quite fair. The price has come down since I bought my copy, too.
  
• Get yourself a King James (not NKJV, just KJV) for the purposes of literary study. There are places that distribute them for free. Ask at church. (This is perhaps the best Bible for your phone or e-reader: it can be had in digital format for less than $1.)
  
• A paraphrase can be helpful when you need a fresh look at the Scriptures, or if you're new to them. My mom really liked The Message (depending on the publication, it runs in the $15-$30 range) as a paraphrase, but I'll be frank: I've not used paraphrases for my own purposes. I tend to be good with written languages.
  
  If you're really apathetic about which version you get, as long as you get a Bible, ask at church. They will have Bibles for the asking.
  
  No, there are no referrer tags in my Amazon links. I do not do that.

What you are seeking I think would in my opinion be found in Orthodox Christianity.

1. We Orthodox call them Spiritual Fathers. These can be your priest, your confessor or a monk. Usually it is your priest or confessor as they will get to know you very well. The job of a spiritual Father is to help instruct and guide you on your spiritual path towards salvation. He will answer questions, offer advice with life problems and is the person you can talk to when you are troubled.
   
2. We have hesychasm and prayer rules. They help bring spiritual order into our lives so that we can better live out the faith.
   
3. The Orthodox teaching of hell is that at the judgement all souls (saved and unsaved) will experience God's love. A soul which has rejected God will experience God in a dreadful way entirely as a result of his own choice. God will show him his love but because he has cut off himself from him and rejected him he will not welcome that presence.
   
4. The term denominations refers to all the protestant splinter groups which were created by Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ. Apart from those Christianity has many sects such as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts etc. The way you would discover which is the true one is through research. Look at the Church history, which one teaches and practices the same things as the early Church? Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions we have been given. I can only instruct point you towards the Orthodox Church as we were founded by the Apostles and have kept the teachings and traditions they gave us.
   
5. Prayers to saints is not a necessity, we pray to them to ask them to pray for us just like we would other Christians because God is not the god of the dead and of the living. Christ showed us that they are alive at his transfiguration.
   
6. The attitude towards the different sects changes between churches. Some believe anything flies as long as your praise Jesus. Some, like us, believe that there is only one faith that we were instructed to keep, and to change it is to depart from the church.
   
7. With regards to tradition, you will find its fullness in the Orthodox Church. We were instructed to keep it, and so we did.
   
8. KJV is a good translation, but you can also google about which one is the best. Being translations, they all have issues. We Orthodox believe scripture should not be read alone because the reader will come to his own conclusions rather than what was given to us. Scripture is not just the written word but the overall context and teaching.
   
9. At the end of all this, this is but what our church claims. You can only get to the bottom of it through research. I can point you to the Orthodox Church.
   
   
   A good book to read is this.

Mr. Syme has offered a good list to begin. I would like to follow that list up with a number of other good works:

• The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
  
  
• Theology and Sanity by F.J. Sheed
  
  
• Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie
  
  The NAB you have is an approved translation, but I highly recommend using the RSVCE.
  
  It is certainly a good idea to buy Sacred Scriptures and the Catechism right now. These two pieces of literature are essential to any Catholic's library. The Missal is very good for your devotional life, especially if you are converting and have no prior experience with our Church.
  
  Be sure to balance your reading of non-fiction works with some good, rousing fiction as well. The brain needs to find itself in fantasy every now and then. Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, and Waugh are all good authors.

God calls us all in different ways for sure. Thanks for sharing your background... If it helps at all, I was a very big Bill Maher fan and very much socially liberal prior to my conversion into Catholicism. My personal advice would be to start researching some teachings of the Catholic faith through a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church https://smile.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=cathechism&qid=1572979421&sr=8-1 or a local RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) at a nearby parish. If you're into podcasts, please check out "Word on Fire" from Bishop Robert Barron... He's excellent at explaining the faith.

My recommendation would be to focus on the truth of some of the main teachings of the faith first instead of focusing on the "below the belt" sexual issues like abortion, LGBT, etc. I had similar concerns about some of those teachings until I really got my head around the Catholic concept of original sin, concupiscence, fallen/disordered natures for all of us, and that someone's same sex attraction is no different in the eyes of God than my attraction to drink too much, lust, or be selfish. Feel free to reach out to me at any point with any questions, book recommendations, etc.

We do not have any complete manuscripts of the "original" Hebrew. The vast majority of English translations of the "Hebrew" Old Testament are not translations of the original Hebrew, but rather a translation of a form of Hebrew that was invented in the Middle Ages by a sect (largely anti-Christian) of Jews called the Masoretes.

So for the Old Testament your choices are to defer to translations of a post-Christian Hebrew text or to translations of the Old Testament in another language. The oldest complete version of the Old Testament in any language is the Greek Septuagint, which dates to the 2nd century BC.

In my opinion, the best place to go for a translation of the medieval Masoretic Hebrew text is probably the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, translated by and commented on by Jewish scholars.

The best place to go for a translation of the Greek Septuagint is probably the Orthodox Study Bible.

The advantage of a translation of the Septuagint is that it includes the entire Old Testament. Modern Jewish and Protestant translations omit a number of books.

In my opinion, the best English translation of the New Testament is the 2-volume Orthodox New Testament, but it's not terribly readable.

I agree with another suggestion that the RSV is perhaps the best overall version. If you opt for this, be sure to purchase a version with the so-called "Apocrypha" (actually called the Deuterocanon by the Church Fathers). The New Oxford Annotated Bible is a good choice. Definitely AVOID the NRSV - Get the RSV.

>Christians who don't believe in YEC, are you mostly in the Age Gap boat, where you feel that evolution is compatible with Scripture, and you don't take portions of Genesis literally (or some other combination that makes room for deep geologic time)?

I find gap theory fairly unconvincing. I don't think Genesis 1 is actually concerned with giving a scientific chronology of creation, but has more theological interests. My take is generally something like the "poetic framework" view, though I find John Walton's approach very informative. In general I find Biologos a useful resource for examining the origins debate from a Christian and scientific perspective.

>I'm mainly asking out of curiosity, because there seems to be a fair amount of "evidence" on both sides, but I also think that both evolutionists and creationists take a fair amount of truth from evidence on faith rather than facts. What is the main deciding factor in your belief either way (specifically, evidence that points to the truth of your belief other than that the Bible says that it happened)?

There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to indicate that life has common ancestry, earth has a deep geological history, and the universe has an even older history going back to the big bang.

Either God created the universe to appear old, or it really is old.

There seems to be something about the age of 14 that makes this situation come up. :) Just a week ago there was a similar thread to this one in which a religious mother came to this subreddit asking for advice on how to understand her 14-year-old's atheist views. Here's the thread, in case there's any useful information in there.

Unfortunately your son seems a lot "angrier" than the one that was the subject of that thread. Sorry to hear that, it sounds like it's pretty rough. However, it also sounds like the two of you have already made some excellent progress reconciling your differences and views, so that's promising, and the fact that he's 14 gives both of you plenty of time to come to a better understanding of each other before he heads off into the world and opportunities become fewer.

One idea that comes to mind to possibly help dial back the antagonism your son feels toward religion might be to get him a book about the philosophy of atheism, so that he can maybe develop a more nuanced view toward it. Often extreme viewpoints come from a lack of understanding of the issue - extremism is simple and easy.

I haven't read a lot on the subject myself so perhaps others will have better suggestions, but one book I came across that seemed pretty good is The Portable Atheist, which is a collection of essays and articles from a wide variety of prominent nonbelievers throughout history. You might even find it interesting yourself (I imagine you'd want to give it a read before passing it along anyway, just to be on the safe side :).

Yes, my brother, please do read the Catechism! The Lord Jesus established the Catholic Church here on earth to guide us until the end of the age [Matthew 28:20]. He gave Saint Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and with them the power to bind and loose here on earth [Matthew 16:18-19]. The Church therefore does have the full authority to add and remove obligations for ritual cleanliness, for example, and other proscriptions not related to moral teaching. Moral teaching itself is part of the Church Magisterium that absolutely cannot be removed or rescinded and is infallibly binding for all time. All of this is made explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which very beautifully and concisely summarizes what we believe and why we believe it. I promise you, you will be blessed with a much greater understanding of the faith, and the grace of being able to explain it and profess it with much more strength by reading this document. In case you want a hard copy (I would certainly recommend that), I linked the Amazon listing below.

https://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519744875&sr=1-2&keywords=catechism

>start with one lie that, if true, is sufficient, but then pepper in like two or three other things that are progressively less relevant

Bingo. And it's also the mark of a truly stupid liar, because each successive addition to the excuse chain brings down the mathematical probability that the core statement is true.

(Disclaimer: considering that I'm almost 40 but I only learned about this last year from this excellent book by Richard Carrier I think it's fair to say I'm a pretty dumb motherfucker myself, but I'll try to make sense.)

Take any statement A. You don't know whether it's true or not, but you can assign it a probability of being true. Let's say that the probability is 0.5 (50%) - a coin toss is worth your best guess at this point.

Then, imagine that there are more statements like that, let's call them B, C, and D. Again, you know nothing about the truth behind them, either, but you can again estimate that each of them has a 0.5 probability of being true.

Now, take three people:

Person 1 tells you "A".

Person 2 tells you "A and B".

Person 3 tells you "A, B, C, and also D, believe me, believe me".

At this point you still don't know anything about any of those four statements, but you can calculate the probability for each person of being full of shit.

Person 1 only claimed one statement, A, so the likelihood he's full of shit is 0.5 (50%).

Person 2 went further and claimed A and B. The probability that both are true is 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25.

Person 3 is the bigliest guy with the best words, believe me. The probability of his four-part statement chain is 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.0625 - that's 6.25%.

Because person 3 is a fucking moron he went and stacked multiple statements on top of one another, thereby bringing his full-of-shitness from a 50% likelihood to a whopping 93.75%. Just like that, what a fucking clown.

PS: You can of course have different probabilities for each statement, and they can differ from one another, too. But by definition if you don't know the truth for sure then it logically follows none of the statements can ever achieve a probability of 1. The conclusion is that every additional statement will always reduce the overall likelihood.

Sure.

If evolution is of interest to you (and if you have interest in the intersection between theology and science), Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller explores both sides of the debate and debunks many common misconceptions about evolution. I first read it in a college biology topics course.

If you like the topic of 'creationist attempts to dispute or disrupt the teaching of evolution in the classroom', Summer of the Gods, about the Scopes Monkey Trial, is a great book (although not explicitly about science).

You may find The Selfish Gene by Dawkins worth a read.

Books by Mary Roach can be fun; I've read Stiff and enjoyed it, and Packing for Mars was pretty good as well.

I have heard good things about The Emperor of All Maladies, though I haven't read it myself.

Our Stolen Future, about contamination of the environment by artificially produced estrogen and estrogen analogs, is dated but interesting.

The Discovery of Insulin by Bliss is a great story about how science happens and how scientific discovery occurs, and it lays out what may be the most important discovery in medical science during the 20th century.

Were those types of books what you were looking for?

I have "seen" things that have convinced me. Not visually, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually my search for truth has always eventually lead me towards a belief in God. I'm not going to get into the individual things that lead me to be convinced of God as they are my lifetime so far of personal experience, education and seeking. But there is enough personal evidence to convince me to have faith.

I think you haven't seen anything convincing because you're looking for the wrong thing.

I could say that I don't believe in atoms, that I haven't seen demonstrable proof for them, you'll ask what would convince me, and I could say "I'll know it when I see it." You would conclude that I haven't examined the evidence properly. You'd find the fault in my view, not reality. How I look at it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You trust yourself to be the judge of what constitutes adequate proof, but how do you know you're judging that properly.

God is something that would by nature be outside the realm of complete human understanding. We are biological beings with a limited subjective view trying to understand the existence of something limitless, something non-biological, something relational, spiritual, metaphysical. Yet you expect this very thing to physically manifest itself before your eyes before you'll even consider that it exists.

Even if it did physically manifest itself to you, through the lens of science, you wouldn't end up believe in the thing itself, just the bit that physically manifested.

What I'm getting at is that science can only prove the physical, so when asking questions about non-physical things you can't rely on science to reveal them. You can believe that there is only the physical, and science is therefore the only metric you need for assessing the truth. But as science can only measure the physical, you can't use it to prove that a non-physical doesn't exist.

You'll ask why this non-physical, if it does exist, hasn't reached out and confronted you, hasn't revealed itself to you. I'd say it has, but you choose not to listen, because you don't believe in it. You have to open yourself to it first. It's there. What you want is for it to take the last step, to make you believe in it. But you want it to do that on your physical terms.

Someone much more wise and eloquent than I can explain this idea better than I can:
Jordan Peterson on why he believes in God.

For the record I think the scientific case for God is also pretty decent. This book has helped me with that.

> In my understanding polygamy is not officially gone from church doctrine, but rather just not currently practiced. Reading OD1 seems to confirm this as in no place does it strictly repeal it. Is this true? Will polygamy be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom and would it be practiced again should the laws of marriage in the United States change to permit it?

Yes, it is still doctrinal and does still shape sealing policies. I've been taught that it would be practiced again in the future and that it is practiced in the CK. I don't, however, believe that.

> I've heard rumors and read accounts of prominent Mormon leaders (Joseph Smith & Brigham Young in particular) marrying women who already had husbands that were still living. Is this true? What is the reasoning behind this?

Yes, it's true. I don't know the reason. It's one of the most troubling aspects of the historical practice of polygamy.

> In the afterlife, can someone marry my wife? (We are sealed in the temple)

Who really knows what exactly will happen in the afterlife?

> Brigham Young had children with multiple (like... 15ish?) wives? Why were these children not permitted to have a father they didn't share with so many others? Did Utah Territory have a significantly larger female population than male?

Brigham had children with 16 of his 55 wives. In a lot of cases, I don't really see a significant difference between growing up with Brigham Young or Heber C Kimball as your father and growing up without a father—especially when those fathers spent so much time off on missions. Utah didn't have significantly more females than males. The census actually indicates that there were more men than women. AFAIK, it was only a small number of men that were able to get a large number of wives. Elder Widstoe talks about it in his book "Evidences and Reconciliations", and concludes that they practiced polygamy not because there were surplus women but because they believed that God commanded it.

> D&C 132:62-64. Do we still believe that? Why is that still in the scripture, it seems very... ... not what I learn in Sunday School. Man owning women, man sleeping with many women - women being denied the same, if the original wife disagrees God will "destroy" her... this is a bit concerning, please tell me I'm misunderstanding this.

No, I think that you do understand these verses. I don't know whether or not "we" (the Church) believe them, but I don't accept them. They're in the canon, but any lesson that includes section 132 is usually selective about how it covers it and mostly just covers the blessings of eternal (one man and one woman) marriage.

Polygamy is difficult to understand and easy to judge. There was some good that came out of it (including me), but a lot of it was also done poorly.

If you really want to learn more about polygamy, I would recommend reading history books.

Here are some good ones you could look into:

• Mormon Polygamy
  
• Mormon Enigma
  
• In Sacred Loneliness
  
• Rough Stone Rolling
  
• Joseph Smith's Polygamy
  
  I would also recommend reading what Parley P Pratt wrote about polygamy in his autobiography, as well as this essay that the church recently put out.

Highly unlikely. There's not even good evidence most of the apostles were martyred. Furthermore, the beauty and utility of marterdom was also a core idea of Second Temple Judaism, and despite people trying to get themselves martyred, it happened much less than you probably think. There's only about 5 named individuals we're confident in, and, for example, one of the most preminant scholars of early Christianity (Rodney Stark) estimates the total at less than 100.

Also, we have records of exactly nobody claiming to have seen Jesus in the flesh, only people claiming many years later that other people claimed to have seen him, and Paul claiming a spiritual vision.

I highly recommend picking up one of Stark's books to get a sympathetic but rigerous view of the actual history of early Christianity and why it grew, which will help you understand your religion quite a bit more. Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity, The First Three Thousand Years is another good history, though IMHO not quite as informative as it doesn't follow the sociological factors quite as closely. Those are both solid books by excellent historians who are more positive toward Christianity than average for experts in the field, and I think you'd find them useful.

> Redditepsilon, 2 day old account. While a very young account is usually indicative of some sort of got'ca or make-a-claim hit and run account - Redditepsilon, your post history provides some evidence that you will actually discuss/debate against your topic post, so some short answers (mostly copy and paste from previous debates) to these common claims.

> If we look at the background historical data on the resurrection of Jesus, which is the empty tomb,

Let's look at what is arguably the most important narrative related to Jesus in Christianity, the Resurrection narratives. Ignoring the completely inaccurate portrayal of the Roman trial law and procedures in the Trial of Jesus, and the historically unsupportable removal of the body of the decessed Jesus from the crufix and tomb burial - which presumes that the body was actually placed in the tomb (link - warning a HUGH wall of text), let's look at the consistency and accuracy of the various canon Gospel narratives related to the resurrection. The much studied, and selected, Gospel canon narratives, canon selected by learned men who had both (1) strong motivation to select narratives that supported their worldview and confirmation bias and (2) demonstrated rejection of dogma/narratives that did not fit their self-selected criteria, results in a series of Resurrection narratives that are highly non-internally consistent.

• Comparison Chart: Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection
  
• A Table Comparing the Contents of the Resurrection Narratives in each of the Four Gospels
  
  Before the Christian Apologist kicks in and claims that these narratives are all essentially the same (somehow), consider the narratives from the claim that there is a truth position in Christianity/Yahweh's existence that results from the argument of internal consistency and historical fact. Given the widely different versions of the Resurrection narrative, for what is arguably the most important and essential event/tenet of Christianity, the argument from internal consistency of it's own historical fact fails to be credible.
  
  > the post-mortem apparances of Jesus to different people and groups of people
  
  Besides the claim of the apostles that they saw Jesus post-resurrection, who were these other people?
  
  > the origin of the disciples faith that Jesus rose from the dead
  
  But speaking of the appearance of post-resurrection Jesus - Jesus purposefully provided empirical physical, and falsifiable, evidence that he (Jesus) was alive and in natural physical human body form (Doubting Thomas, John 20:24-29) following the Resurrection. 1. Why does Jesus fail to provide such evidence now? and 2. In light of the actions of Jesus, why is Religious Faith considered such a virtue?
  
  > the willingness of Jesus' disciples to go to their deaths for that faith
  
  Fallacy of argumentum ad martyrium (argument from martyrdom). While the argument from martyrdom, an appeal to emotion, produces an emotional response, the act of martyrdom/suicide in no way provides, or supports, a truth position against the belief that is used to support the label of martyr. People voluntarily die for all sorts of beliefs that have no truth value.
  
  For a detailed assessment see: March to Martyrdom! (Down the Yellow Brick Road…)
  
  > is that a convincing evidence on a balance of probability, that Jesus was raised from the dead?
  
  No. The claim/assertions of resurrection is, at best, highly questionable.
  
  > And doesn't that suggest he was raised by God from the dead?
  
  Again no.
  
  > it's almost certain he [Jesus] existed.
  
  Did Jesus the man exist as depicted in the New Testament of the Bible?
  
  Given the contradictions internally within in the narratives and the contradictions in events/dates between the narratives and events/dates presented in contemporary histories, I would say that it is unlikely that, presuming existence of a historical figure, the depiction of Jesus the man in the Gospels is accurate.
  
  I will concede that there was a man, a Jewish man, that acted as a Rabbi, and that preached a form of divergent Judaism, and that lived around 4 BCE'ish till around 29 BCE'ish (when this man is said to have died). I concede that a historical Jesus existed, where Jesus is the name given to the archetype of the person upon which the Jesus narrative in the New Testament is based. Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua, Jesus, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, was not an uncommon name within the Hebrew community and may represent the actual name of this archetypal person. This Jesus character is also attributed with what can arguably be described as a lite version of the morality of Buddhism, and this Jesus was a decent, though with a rather shallow philosophy, fellow. This Jesus was also atypical of the contemporary Jews as he was in his 30's and had not married.
  
  The Divine narrative attributed to the Jesus character, however, is a different issue.
  
  If you are interested in a mythist position concerning the historical Jesus, check out:
  
  
• On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier
  
  Summary: The assumption that Jesus existed as a historical person has occasionally been questioned in the course of the last hundred years or so, but any doubts that have been raised have usually been put to rest in favor of imagining a blend of the historical, the mythical and the theological in the surviving records of Jesus. Carrier re-examines the whole question and finds compelling reasons to suspect the more daring assumption is correct. He lays out extensive research on the evidence for Jesus and the origins of Christianity and poses the key questions that must now be answered if the historicity of Jesus is to survive as a dominant paradigm. Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically; such stories eventually came to be believed or promoted in the struggle for control of the Christian churches that survived the tribulations of the first century. Carrier finds the latter theory more credible than has been previously imagined. He explains why it offers a better explanation for all the disparate evidence surviving from the first two centuries of the Christian era. He argues that we need a more careful and robust theory of cultural syncretism between Jewish theology and politics of the second-temple period and the most popular features of pagan religion and philosophy of the time. For anyone intent on defending a historical Jesus, this is the book to challenge.
  
  OP, if you wish to have a more indepth discussion/debate, a suggestion... Pick just one claim/assertion, start a new topic (here in /r/debateanatheist or /r/DebateReligion), present your claim and supporting argument/position, and then defend that claim and argument. When you post as many claims as you did in this topic post (and presented without actual credible evidence or supporting argument), the length of a full and detailed response becomes silly.
  
  ----
  
  EDIT: Going back to the empty tomb argument....
  
  OP, here are some previous discussions concerning the claims made around the empty tomb that came up in /r/AcademicBiblical.
  
  /r/AcademicBiblical is a fairly active subreddit that discusses early Judaism and Christianity—with a focus on Biblical texts, but also related noncanonical literature (1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.)—in a scholarly context. A highly recommended subreddit for all those interested in studies of Judaism and Christianity.

>To me, the most obvious explanation for why you don't think Genesis should be taken literally is that you understand that it can't be literally true and so you conclude that it wasn't intended to be so. On the other hand, you want to believe in Jesus and the gospels, so you believe that they're true, and then decide that they must have been written as truth. If this isn't the reason for your position, then please tell me what your actual reason is.

Could you be a little more condescending here? How is this the "most obvious explanation"? This is the most obvious explanation if you take me to be an idiot or intellectually dishonest; I do not appreciate those implications. Charity will ensure that our discussions are fruitful.

If we are going to interpret the Bible, then we must discern how different genres should be interpreted. The Bible has a plethora of different genres: narrative, poetry, song, genealogy, letters, apocalypse, law, prophecy, etc. We need to understand the nature of these genres so we can read them right. Otherwise, we are going to produce absurd ideas. For example, if we read the newspaper thinking that it's a love poem, we will probably become frustrated.

Genesis 1 has a lot of poetic elements to it. It is a story of how God created the universe and assigned function to everything. It should not be difficult to see the poetic nature of this chapter. For example, Days 1-3 depict God creating various containers; Days 4-6 depict God filling the containers. On Day 4, he creates sun, moon, and stars, which corresponds to Day 1 - light and dark. Day 5 has fish and birds which fill the sky and sea (Day 2). Day 6 is plant and animal life and humans, which fills the land made on Day 3.

Anyway, the story is much more a story about God than about the mechanics of creation. It is not a historical narrative. Thus, trying to interpret this like we would a historical narrative is an unfortunate category mistake. I've found John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One to be a helpful deconstruction of this chapter.

Now, the Gospels are a different genre. They are biographies of Jesus Christ, and they focus on what he did. These are quite similar to other, secular biographies that we have from the same time period. Furthermore, fiction from that time is not written like the Gospels. The Gospels demonstrate eyewitness sources. To say that they were not to be intended as actual history is to say that the writers effectively invented a brand-new genre of realistic fiction. Mythic writings in this time were not like the Gospels. For example, contrast the Revelation or 1 Enoch (apocalyptic literature) with the Gospels. One should easily be able to tell the difference.

The point is, we should realize that the Bible has different genres, was written over the course of hundreds of years, and is a diverse document. As it sounds silly to question if the epistles were written to actual people because the Psalms are worship music, the idea that Genesis 1 is not intended to be historical implies nothing about the historicity of the Gospels. If you are interesting in a full understanding of the different texts, I would recommend Fee/Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, and How to Read the Bible Book by Book. They are helpful introductions to the topic of Biblical Intepretation.

I'm not sure what causes you to love my username, it's just initials and a last name, but I'm curious what you took it to mean!

Strobel's The Case for Christ is good, but it's pretty simple.

For a better look at the Gospels and how Jesus is shown to be divine in them, I would recommend Dr. Brant Pitre's new book The Case for Jesus. I think it'd be a good next step for these questions.

If your looking for good philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God that might get him thinking, then you might want to pick up Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

I think someone up higher was correct when they said that only God changes hearts, but I found this book very thought provoking. Even if it doesn't convince him it might produce some very good and thoughtful discussions.

And cheers to you for wanting to share the joy! It's the best basis for a relationship that I can imagine.

First of all, it is not up to you to 'disprove' the bible, though it would be child's work to find numerous contradictions and many many flaws. HE is the one that is saying the bible is true. How does he know that it is true? Because the bible says so? This is clearly circular reasoning. You could as easily say the Qu'ran is true because the Qu'ran say it is true. The only reason he isn't saying that is because (presumably) he was brought up on Christianity and not Islam. Had he grown up in Saudi Arabia, there's a pretty damn good chance he would be a Muslim.

Now, as for disproving the bible, you could point out numerous contradictions between the bible itself, point out claims the bible makes about how the world works that are clearly flawed, or point out the great many immoral actions god takes in the bible. Now, depending on his brand of Christianity, he might come back with different arguments.

Examples: That's supposed to be interpreted differently. That verse is anecdotal. This is not meant to be taken literally. The Old Testament is to be ignored(if he does this, you can point out Matthew 5:17-20). God is mysterious and the paragon of morality, therefore everything he does is automatically moral.

It is amazing the different ways people can dismiss the gaping holes in their beliefs.

I think the most efficient way to 'disprove' the bible is to simply point out how it has changed throughout history. Remember, we didn't always have the printing press, it is a relatively new technology. The bible was copied through through humans copying it by hand... humans who of course, made a mistake here and there... and this has happened since the conception of the bible. HUNDREDS of generations, each one hand-copying the bible, making mistakes... adding things that were originally not there, or taking away some things. Not to mention translations, which created a slew of new flaws. If you want to go into detail on the history of the bible and how it has changed throughout history, read Misquoting Jesus: The story of who changed the bible and why.

In the end though, the strongest argument is that there is no reason to believe there is a god, MUCH LESS a personal god who is interested in what we do, answers prayers, sent a 'son' to sacrifice himself for humanity and demands worship.

> Also does anyone know of any Christian books on evolution that are free of religiously inspired scientific claims?

While I have not read it, I've had religious and non-religious people recommend it, and it's gone through a lot of printings and remains popular. Check out "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Ken Miller. Amazon link.

Miller is also the author of high school biology textbooks and was a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board trial. An excellent (if long) video of him talking about the trial is here. He brings up a lot of problems for creationists and intelligent design proponents - things that just don't make sense in light of what we know about evolution. While I'm not an ex-creationist, I do find the video fascinating and so you might also. If I were an ex-creationist, things like human chromosome #2 would be pretty compelling for me. Miller discusses this in detail in the video.

Oh. Well in that case there's really a lot he could read.

• Natan Slifkin might interest him. He's a rabbi & a biologist. He also has a blog called Rationalist Judaism, which I really like. (He's written a few books too)
  
  
• Marc Shapiro is also very interesting. He is Orthodox, but approaches religious subjects academically and is widely admired. He might like his writing or his video lectures. This subreddit is actually going to discuss one of his books, "The Limits of Orthodox Theology" in a couple months.
  
  
• Mordechai Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement, was fairly prolific. It's not science related and it's super-old, but I think "Judaism as a Civilization" is still relevant.
  
  
• While I'm at it, I don't think it hurts to have something like How to Read the Jewish Bible or The Jewish Study Bible around.
  
  
• A final note, if he's into biblical criticism, I'd recommend Christine Hayes of Yale University. She has a YouTube playlist of her classes. Her presentation is exceedingly accessible. She works very hard to discuss the Hebrew Bible respectfully.
  
  
  Note: I decided to put biblical criticism here because it's something Jewish atheists (whatever we mean by atheist) eventually have to deal with. If an atheist is really is attached to their Jewish identity, they will somehow have to explain why they care about a library of texts that their friends on message boards etc. will routinely mock.
  
  
  Good luck!
  

I admire your honesty and desire for truth, it's very rare these days.


To answer your question, you must pray. Prayer is necessary for faith, because it comes from above. You know how some people, even with all the evidence, reject what is reality because they want to be deluded? You need God to help you see reality and to live according to it. You should start praying the rosary, as it's a most beautiful prayer to the Mother of God, while meditating on the life of Christ. Prayer is humility in action, because by praying you recognize you are not strong enough on your own. You need God's help.


After that, I'd find a priest in a parish from here near where you live (https://www.latinmassdir.org/), these are traditional priests, and he can help you answer your questions. Online is one thing and in person is another.


And keep reading in the meantime, both sides, of the evidence for Jesus Christ as the Son of God (https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483), Lives of the Saint(Pope St Pius X, St Anthony the Great, St Anthony of Padua, St Padre Pio), the Gospels.


It's not easy and it will take time, but life in Christ is worth more than all that. The peace of God is worth more than the universe.


" Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. "

Certainly pray for her, but confronting her can be detrimental to the relationship. My wife prayed for me a lot, but we would get into fights when she tried too hard to convert me (for our first married Christmas she literally bought a pile of Catholic apologetics books; it didn't go well). I had to come to conversion on my own.

The most important thing is to work hard to be a faithful Catholic yourself. This is especially true because you weren't practicing when you got married; your wife should be able to tell the difference between who you were before and who you are now, with the Church back in your life. As others have suggested, go to Mass, make time for adoration, pray the rosary, buy and read books that teach you your Catholic faith and improve your devotion to our Lord. When you mess up, especially in your marriage, go to confession ASAP and make things right.

Don't attack her or Protestantism in general; it's unhelpful, for example, to say, "See? Protestants be crazy," when something bad happens at your wife's church. (Bad things happen at Catholic parishes, too.) But when she has questions for you--"Why don't you eat fish on Fridays? Why do you pray to Mary? Why does your Bible have more books than mine?"--make sure you have answers. Be charitable and knowledgeable in responding.

Perhaps most importantly, be patient. Prayer works, but it doesn't always accomplish your goal today or tomorrow.

EDIT: Typo.

WARNING: Long post ahead!

I admire your desire to avoid confirmation bias and develop a stronger and more reasoned system of beliefs. I also appreciate your honesty in admitting that in some sense, you wish that Christianity could still be true. The pain you are experiencing from questioning long-held beliefs is very familiar to many folks on this sub.

You're not alone. And you should definitely not give up. :)

However:

>>I will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I'll warn you up front that if you do this, you will probably be led away from any sort of belief in Christianity. Christianity is a religion whose truth or falsehood hinges upon specific historical claims. If Jesus either (1) did not exist, or (2) existed but was not divine and did not resurrect from the dead, then Christianity literally cannot be true. And having walked the same path you're on, I found that the evidence led me to abandoning Christianity. I'm an engineer myself, and eventually I had to accept that the historical evidence just doesn't support Christianity.

With that being said, I've been reading the other posts and discussions here thus far, and it sounds to me like you're stuck between two difficult options: (1) a genuine desire to be intellectually honest, no matter the cost, and (2) facing the difficulty of abandoning a belief system which has been a major part of your marriage and your family. If you want to walk the line between the two, I would recommend that you adopt a rationalistic form of classical Deism or Theism. Accepting a "minimalistic theism," as you put it, might be pragmatically very useful. It could help smooth out any potential conflicts you might have with your spouse and children. At this emotionally difficult time, that could be very beneficial to both you and them. It could also help your family start to look at religious belief in a more rational light, just as you do.

If you haven't already, take a look at some of the best Christian apologists out there --- John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantinga, and the like. I didn't find them convincing, but reading their arguments could probably help you develop a more intellectually rigorous belief system.

Also, take a look at some books written by theistic evolutionists, such as Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis Lamoureux, and The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. These scholars have had no difficult reconciling science with theism, and they might help you in your quest to develop a minimalist theistic belief system.

Finally, this process can be long and painful, and you shouldn't rush yourself through it. Take your time.

And as always, please use this sub for questions and support when you need. If you have more questions, or want to discuss this further, let me know.

>Yes, there should be no there. Why would a benevolent god shield a few animals in a garden while the rest were susceptible to diseases and cancers and genetic disorders. Not to mentions the necessity of ending the life of another animal to eat is pretty miserable too. Both living things want to keep living but neither have sinned to warrant their own deaths.

I think you're kind of feeding into OP's assumption here, that suffering = result of sin. I'm arguing that isn't the case.

What Genesis 2-3 could be referring to is that time when God started revealing Himself to creation in a direct way, at a time when it was deemed humans were ready to respond. A fascinating part of the book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton was that some parts of the story seems to indicate that the adam (literally , "the human") was given priestly tasks. Perhaps it was the role of these first pair to start dishing out information on God, and people would come to Eden to meet with God. Certainly we get that impression from the rest of the Bible: that God isn't content with only a few knowing about Him, but that the whole world should come to worship (and of course, this kind of finds its climax in Christ, in the story of the Bible).

> Advice recall, In Genesis it implies God doesn't want them to live forever if they know the secrets of the world. So are you saying had they not eaten the first fruit they would have lived forever?

I would rather say, if they continued eating the second fruit. But eating the first fruit (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) disqualified them from access to the second.

Now whatever that first tree represented is still up in the air. There's a number of good guesses. My personal favourite is that it's an idiom for "wisdom without reference to God". Kind of like how we might say "we searched high and low". We don't mean there's only two places we looked - it's everything inbetween. So too this first tree might be a metaphor for living without God, and instituting moral decisions without God's authority. It was, in effect, a mutiny.

1. Video lectures by Richard Elliott Friedman. (There is a fee, but they are worth every penny if you want to learn more about the Hebrew Bible.)
   
   
2. Video lectures by Shaye J.D. Cohen. (These are free and include class notes.)
   
   
3. The Jewish Study Bible.
   
   
4. The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
   
   
5. NIV Study Bible (This may seem like an outlier, but some of the notes are actually pretty good, and you see what the inerrantist view of certain passages is. I also give the caveat that the NIV is definitely biased toward Bible inerrancy and will fudge its translation accordingly.)
   
   
6. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. "Dictionary" is somewhat misleading due to the thoroughness of the entries.
   
   
7. A good commentary series or commentary about a specific Bible book.
   
   There are numerous resources that I could suggest, but these are a good start.
   
   ​

I can recommend some books.

For general theology:

• Being, Consciousness, and Bliss by David Bentley Hart
  
  
• On the Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius
  
  
• This argument and this other argument, which are some of the best out there for God's existence
  
  
• Summa Theologica by Aquinas
  
  
• The Last Superstition by Ed Fesser
  
  For living a Christian life:
  
  
• Way of the Pilgram
  
• The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa
  
• Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom
  
  
• The Brothers Karamozov
  
  
• Centuries of Mediations by Thomas Trahearne
  
  For adjudicating between denominations:
  
  
• The Orthodox Way by Timothy Ware
  
  
• The Story of Christianity by David Bentley Hart
  
  
  Some essays and blogs:
  
  
• A blog, Glory to God for All Things
  
  
• Some essays, "Christ and Nothing", "Gods and Gopniks", "Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark", and "Why Don't We Believe in Fairies"
  
  
  Do you need a denomination? Yes. All truths cannot be equally valid; therefore, some denominations must be closer to the truth than others. In the end, Christ teaches that the Church will be preserved throughout history. The question to answer for yourself is: what is the true Church? Obviously, I'm Eastern Orthodox and am convinced my Church is the fullest expression of Christianity, so read my comment as being spoken by a person from a particular group who has his own biases. Feel free to check out Orthodox Christianity if you start looking our way.
  
  Edited

Books: (I would double-check to make sure they don't already have some of these prior to purchase, though)

• Nice hardback version of the Catechism
  
• Good Catholic Study Bible (Pope-Urban-III mentioned some good ones)
  
• Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn
  
• Priority of Christ by Bishop Robert Barron
  
• subscription to Magnificat
  
• Book about or written by their confirmation saint
  
• Good Catholic Prayer Book
  
• Letters to a Young Catholic by George Weigel (if they're younger)
  
• Finding True Happiness by Dr. Robert Spitzer, SJ
  
  Not books:
  
  
• A nice rosary (a Catholic can never have too many rosaries)
  
• A wall crucifix (as in one they can hang on the wall at home)
  
• A necklace with a crucifix on it
  
• A nice nativity set
  
• An artistic picture of the pope? (a great gift if they're a fan of Pope Francis--if they aren't, find out what Pope they are a fan of and get a picture of that pope)
  

I use the Jordanville prayer book, which is similar in feel to the HTM. My sense is it's less elegant than HTM at its best, but also less uneven. It's still kind of idiosyncratic, but I've learned to like it. This has become the standard prayer book, among Orthodox converts who feel the need for a standard prayer book :-)

Fr Ephrem Lash has published a modern-English edition of the usual daily prayers. He's a highly-educated British priestmonk, with a style that's modern but more refined than most chatty modern English Orthodox texts. Here's his edition for sale at Amazon. It's not very cheap, and I haven't read it - but to give you a taste of his style, here's his website, and here's his translation of Small Compline.

More versions here...

Incidentally, about all the faux retro-English: Bishop Kallistos (Ware) and Bishop Basil (Essey) have both proven very good at writing retro-English that's understandable, consistent, and doesn't get in the way of the sense of the text - while a number of Greek, Arab and Russian clergy and scholars have tried their hands at translation into English (modern and retro) and produced texts that are either impenetrable or just silly. Given the current state of canonical oddness here in Barbarian Territory, and the continuing influx of Protestants-In-Recovery with strong opinions, I don't expect an agreed-upon, high-quality body of translations in ordinary unaffected English to coalesce in my lifetime.

I keep reminding myself to be grateful: Only a generation ago, there were almost no English Orthodox materials to be had. You could read your Bible, follow the basic services from Hapgood and Orloff, and (from 1963) read The Orthodox Church and that was about it in English, until the 1980s or so. So even if it's an esthetic trial, I remind myself the current selection of awkwardly-translated material is still an embarrassment of riches comapred to what young Timothy (Bp. Kallistos) Ware or Eugene (Fr Seraphim) Rose had available to them :-)

I don't actively look for metal lyrics. When I look for intelligent anti theistic writing, I read what philosophers and other great writers have said. If you are interested, I cannot recommend this compilation enough: http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Burn the church, kill everyone, your god is dead satanic black metal lyrics. But to say they are intelligently written? I have not come across anything like that. I'm not trying to put down metal here, if anyone can show me some honestly poetically written, intelligent, mature metal lyrics, I would love to see them.

I actually think South of Heaven by Slayer has some pretty decent lyrics come to think of it.

Orthodox Study Bible it has great commentary, with only like one spot I can remember where I was like "ehhh"

But it does explain the use of the Septuagint, and explain some theology, and a glossary to different commentary. It may be a little pricey, but I really enjoy the commentary and am on my 2nd read through. It also includes the lectionary, or rather what the Church has every one reading on the same day of through the year =) hope that helps!
Met. Kallistos Ware has a few books "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way" which are good primers of theology, life in the church, and differences between East and West

I'm surprised no on mentioned Jordan Peterson's extensive analysis of Genesis, which may be one of his more useful contributions to the public record, IMO. He views and describes Genesis through the lens of psycho-social development, and makes, what I think is a pretty compelling description of how a person can hear these stories and see themselves within the narrative as protagonists aligned with the ancients seeking a covenant with God (Peterson's definition of God is roughly, that which represents the highest attributes and ideals). If anyone was interested in this reading and this topic, I highly suggest listening to the Peterson lectures; I found them very interesting.

One final thing on this point, Peterson remarks quite frequently about the self-referential nature of the bible, that it has numerous links throughout the text back to other stories and that these should often be taken as updates, revisions and remarks on the original tales. It's one of the things that makes the New Testament so interesting to me because it acts as a commentary on the body of work that had been meticulously edited and passed around for a few thousand years recasting the meaning of the Old Testament as the means to the NT ends, i.e. forgiveness of Sin for our endless bullshit into a new age of grace ennobling us to move forward.

I'd also add that R. Crumb's illustrated Genesis is amazing and really drove home the human element underlining these stories. While his aesthetic is more cartoony than realistic, he's clearly a master of his craft and really drives home the emotion and strife of the various actors and lays out the stories in a fun and thoughtful way.

Finding Darwin's God is an introduction to evolution by a Christian scientist. It's a great option.

Richard Dawkins is also very good. He's a militant atheist, but his writings on evolution are wonderful, clear, and beautiful. The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show on Earth are both very good options.

You are so smart to do so my friend! You're probably a philosopher at heart, too inquisitive to "just believe." That's great, I wish more Christians were like that.

The fact is there's plenty plenty of evidence for the truth (both historical and philosophical) of Christianity though it just takes time to read through it all. It's something you kind of have to get a bug up your butt about, or in my case you get strong-armed into it mentally, in which case you become obsessed with it which is what happened to me.

For some lay-level reading I'd check out (in no particular order)

Cold Case Christianity

Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig

Evidence for Christianity

There are a TON more...

Also, read the old Church fathers, really fun stuff.

Please feel free to PM me anytime, I will gladly talk to you about whatever you want.

Although it may seem wild at first, I subscribe to John Walton's cosmic temple inauguration explanation. He looked closely at ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text with emphasis on the Hebrew word for "create" (bara). He discusses two types of ontologies, one material and one functional. Material creation would be what we're most familiar with, like creating a table. An example of functional ontology would be creating a meeting.

Walton makes a convincing argument that Genesis 1 is an account of God's functional creation. He took one week of 24 hour days to inaugurate his material creation, which we can observe components of scientifically but don't have a scriptural description.

I believe Adam and Eve existed but were not the first homosapiens. They were the first to be created in God's image. I also believe (not scripturally, but from our best scientific theories) in the big bang and evolution.

A good analogy would be the creation of a university. The building could take years to build. Faculty and staff would need to be interviewed and hired. Class schedules would need to be designed. The university is functionally created on the first day of class when everyone shows up and fulfills the design.

If you're interested, here is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Thanks!

No, I'm not Muslim. I would probably call myself a Christian Deist.
Well, I don't think they Bible is the inerrent word of God, here is a good series of video's that shows why:

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 1/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 2/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 3/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 4/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 5/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 6/10

The remaining for videos are on youtube, but they are just Q&A. Also, he has a very good book that talks about the problem of determining what the Bible originally says, you can get it here: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4150144, I mean here! Here, here, here! The book is a balanced account of how the modern Bible came to be, without trying to push you theologically.


So I cant' take the Bible's word on Jesus's divinity. It has also always been my position that God doesn't suspend the laws of nature even in the performance of miracles. So if God parted the Red Sea, for instance, it was via the gravity of the moon. And if God wanted to come visit us he would cause a physical person to exist in the natural course of history to say and do the things he would. A person that is causally determined by the universe cannot be God because God determined the course of the universe based on it's initial conditions. However it is at least possible for someone to be an agent of God. I suppose you would back up such a claim of agency by performing miracles that world require knowledge that only such an agent would have (but the Bible alone can't be relied on to show that Jesus did that either). Also there were early Christians that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they were snuffed out by the proto-orthodoxy of the church.

The question then is did the resurrection at least occur? Well, we can't take the Bible on it's word on it, so how could we at least make it more probable to have happened? I would say that if we could find extra biblical historical evidence that people who claimed to be eye witnesses of the risen Christ were willing to die for that belief, it would at least be at bit likely. The one piece of evidence along those lines is this, by Josephus except the "who was called Christ was probably and addition, and the passage makes more sense if James was the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus. So basically, beyond the Bible I can't find any proof that there really were martyrs of the risen Christ.


I have no problem with the Bible as evidence, but look at it this way. If your friend sends you a postcard that says he went to Jerusalem and saw a teacher give a lecture series, I'll believe him. If I receive an anonymous letter (since the gospels are all anonymous) that says the writer heard that a teacher rose from the dead at the end of his lectures--I'm gonna need a little more corroboration. Extraordinary claims need more than paltry evidence.

In contrast, the Eastern Churches claim to maintain an unbroken, apostolic Faith that can be traced directly back to the Apostles and Early Church. As far as we're concerned, we don't come from the Early Church, we are the Early Church.

I've tried to find a comprehensive online source, but none of them explain it as well or as thoroughly as I'm sure you'd like. If you would like a comprehensive and thorough argument for the point I just made, I highly recommend that you find a copy of The Orthodox Church. It's inexpensive, especially on Kindle. It's not meant to convince or convert people, just to lay out our history and what we believe, so that others can form their own, more informed, opinions.

It's a fantastic read :)

There are several good ones. As a Protestant, I am sure you would appreciate the biblical background, so here are some I recommend:

1. Walking with Mary (Sri is an excellent theologian whose writing is very accessible).
   
2. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary (Pitre is also very good. While I haven’t read this, if it’s like any of his other books, it will be excellent.)
   
3. Hail Holy Queen (A a popular classic, also listed above).
   
4. Rethinking Mary in the New Testament (A new in-depth treatment focusing on the Biblical background).
   
   You really can’t go wrong with any of these titles. Just check out the descriptions and reviews and see which one you like best.

The two best things:

1. Read the NT with an excellent commentary. My favorite is the Orthodox Study Bible, and it will give you a much more traditional perspective on NT passages.
   
2. Read The Apostolic Fathers. These are the writings of the earliest Christians right after the NT: so something like 70 CE - 150 CE. These are the people who would have known the apostles. It's fascinating what Christianity looks like from their perspective. (Hint: at least to my mind, not Mormonism.) What I see is a sort of proto-Orthodoxy or proto-Catholicism. And some of the letters are just lovely. (Some are strange.)
   
   I"m planning to read some other history book soon, happy to update when I decide on which ones.

I'd like to echo Pocket-Veto's request for more information about what your assignment question specifically is. Anyway I'd definitely get my hands on Introduction to the New Testament by RE Brown, if I were you. That textbook includes some discussion about the authorship of all the New Testament texts as well as commentary on themes and narrative and the like.


Other general textbooks on the New Testament that you might find useful are:

• Studying the Gospels: An Introduction by Gideon Goosen and Margaret Tomlinson
  
• The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation by Luke Timothy Johnson
  
• Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology by Marianne Thompson, Joel B. Green , Paul J. Achtemeier
  
  ​
  
  The next place to look would be the entries on the gospels in a couple of Bible Dictionaries. E.g. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible or the Anchor Bible Dictionary, etc.
  
  ​
  
  Next get a hold of some bible commentaries on the individual gospels. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson has a commentary on Luke in the Sacra Pagina series and RT France and Daniel Harrington have commentaries on Matthew etc. Go to!
  
  ​
  
  I must say that all these are not so relevant to the question about how the text does or does not point to the divinity of Christ. For that I guess you want studies in Christology. So here's a few to get you started:
  
  ​
  
  
• The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre (Actually, check out the contents page of this book. I think Pitre has chapters on quite a number of the topics that you would like to touch on for your paper).
  
• Christology: A biblical, historical, and systematic study of Jesus by Gerald O'Collins
  
• Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper
  
• Jesus of Nazareth (3 volumes) by Pope Benedict XVI
  
• The Priority of Christ by Robert Barron (specifically the section on narratives about Jesus).
  
  ​
  
  You also should get on to your university's library page and do some searches for journal articles or dissertations about the gospels. There's bound to be thousands. You don't need to read them all. Just find a few articles with your relevant key words in the article or description, give the abstract a quick read and then based off of that decide whether or not the article will be any use for you in your assignment and only read it if you think it will.
  
  ​
  
  Let me know if you have any more questions.
  
  ​
  
  Good luck!

I just found about him this year, but reading him (specially his essays on "arguably" or stuff edited by him, like "the portable atheist") has inspired me not only to be more foursquare and vocal in my stance against the religion I apostatized from, but to rekindle my lukewarm, dormant and forlorn love for poetry and literature, he was an eloquent man, and he has inspired me to be eloquent (and proud of being circumloquent) again, despite my engineering degree and technical day-job.

Adieu, Hitch.

> Creating technology is a biological thing.

>My beard example is by definition an adaptation. You adapt to a cold environment by growing your beard.

"Adaptation, in biology, process by which an animal or plant species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection’s acting upon heritable variation."

It is not the relevant definition of adaption though. You are equivocating. Using 1 word but different definitions of it to muddy the waters. Adapting with technology or growing beards is NOT the evolutionary examples you read in here that you dismissed as mere adaption and you damn well know that.

>The entire reason evolution was latched onto was because people wanted a way to explain life without the need for a super natural Creator.

Another lie, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.

Even within the religion creationism is a minority position. The evidence led to evolution.

>People want to feel like they don’t have to answer to a higher power like God.

Accepting reality has absolutely nothing to do with this.

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501

A Christian Biologist wrote that. The entire point is that the ToE is compatible with gods and I assume specifically the Christian god.(note: I've never actually read it. [Edit: but I have seen it recommended to people who couldn't reconcile the two]. It wasn't until after I left Christianity and theism altogether that I first discovered people actually rejected the ToE for a literal reading of two contradicting stories in Genesis, so I never had a reason to) On his wikipedia page it lists "Criticism of creationism" as what he's known for.

>You said that there are tons of examples of “missing links.” What are they? As far as I’m aware there are like 2 somewhat viable organisms

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

'------------
TL;DR Sorry about the book review. Check out the linked book if you're interested in a rational and well-thought out exploration of the absurd implications of new earth/creationist theories on the nature of God.
'------------

For anyone interested in further reading on this topic, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. (www.amazon.com/dp/0061233501/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_9o7szbXJJD182).

The author -- a practicing Catholic -- goes through several popular new earth/creationist theories and summarily dismantles them as being inconsistent with any notions of the Christian God's character. A chapter titled "God the Charlatan" addresses the theory that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and intentionally left behind false evidence (I.e., fossils, carbon dating, light particles from galaxies not yet created but still placed midway between their apparent point of origin and the earth, etc.) solely for the purpose of hiding his role in the creation.

This book became an early shelf item for me when it was assigned as required reading in my Biology 110 class at BYU. Like most TBMs, I "knew" that evolution was nothing more than a theory created by mankind to explain away God, but I had never stopped to think through the ramifications of worshiping such a deceitful God.

The author ultimately comes to a "faithful" conclusion that leaves the door open to the existence of a divine being by applying a "God of the gaps" approach to the apparent unpredictability of sub-atomic particles. Although I can't say I'm ready to endorse his theory, my agnostic-but-not-quite-atheist self can at least acknowledge that it is a lot less crazy of a theory than anything else I've ever heard.

Edit: fixed formatting

What if I told you scriptures are not a scientific tome, but rather a generalized explanation of a relationship between a divine being and people, how we should live with one another, care for one another, and help one another?

And that study of Science is there to help us understand the world we live in, and further the aforementioned goal of living with one another, caring for one another, and helping one another?

And that Scriptures were never intended to be a scientific tome, or even be referenced as a scientific tome?

John Walton, "Lost World of Genesis.", and "Lost world of Adam and Eve"

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, but suggesting that perhaps the people who do have the position you correctly point out are very confused about what they have been taught about their scriptures.

The JW position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Greek in John 1. I won't completely rip off Wayne Grudem here, but their translation of:

>Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

to:

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

rather than

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

is incorrect. They say that the lack of a definite article before theos (θεὸς) indicates that it should be translated as the JWs do. This is, frankly, ignorant of basic Greek grammatical rules, which do not require the definite article, instead using the context of the sentence to determine if it should be "was God" or "was a god". The context of the sentence and those around it give every indication that it must be translated to "was God". Watchtower (the JW newsletter) I believe acknowledged the error not too long ago, but stood by their translation, saying something to the effect of "the context of the rest of scripture" supports them.

this is not only irrelevant for translation purposes, but false on its own merit.

Wayne Grudem goes into a lot of detail on this in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine -- not a cheap book, but it is perhaps the best work of its kind ever written. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Parts are available on google books. There is quite a bit on this issue that isn't available online though.

Desiring God has a nice article on the person of Christ, but not as full and complete.

Scott Hahn is a great author. His style is very clear and since he's an ex-protestant, he can communicate well. I'd very much recommend anything by him.

• Hail, Holy Queen is his book about what Catholics believe about Mary.
  
  
• The Lamb's Supper is his book about what Catholics believe about the mass.
  
  Catholic Answers has a lot of great resources that are geared towards helping protestant understand Catholic stuff. For example, this tract about why Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God".
  
  For more "advanced" reading, I can't recommend the Summa Theologica enough. The full text can be found at newadvent.org, and I'd recommend searching it via google using searches with the following format: "site:newadvent.org summa theologica [topic]". Ex, if you wanted to know what Catholics teach about confession, you'd search "site:newadvent.org summa theologica confession" and follow the first few results.
  
  Fr. Mike Schmitz is also a great resource for basic knowledge.

I've noticed a few on my library shelves, but haven't read them all yet:

Fun Home by Alison Bechdel. It's Bechdel's memoir about her father, and an excellent read. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618871713/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_zF8HzbJGXQY79

The Lives of Sacco and Vanzetti by Rick Geary. It covers a milestone legal case in 20th century US. https://www.amazon.com/Lives-Vanzetti-Treasury-Century-Murder/dp/1561639362

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. It's a text on the nature of comics, in graphic novel form. It's a classic. https://www.amazon.com/dp/006097625X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_sO8HzbDMZF7EJ

The Book of Genesis, illustrated by R. Crumb. He illustrated the entire text of this book of the bible. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393061027/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_8U8HzbZBERQNM

And here's a good list from The Atlantic Monthly: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/08/comic-books-as-journalism-10-masterpieces-of-graphic-nonfiction/243351/ (I've read and enjoyed a couple of these titles, so I feel safe in assuming the others are just as good)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this is helpful! Welcome aboard!

Sure! Most of what I learned wasn't in a class. College/seminary is super overrated outside of something to put on a resume imo (unless you want to get ordained).

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years REALLY good overview book.

The Early Church is really good. Might be a bit dry? But good information.

Christianizing the Roman Empire was pretty interesting and helpful.

Popular Religion in Late Saxon England is as cool as it sounds. My main complaint is that after chapter 3, she essentially just keeps repeating her thesis was more, similar, examples. Very good first 3 chapters tho!

Sayings of the Desert Fathers is good. Sometimes very odd, but at the least interesting.

Augustine's Confessions a must read for many reasons.

On the Holy Spirit can be dry and repetitive at points, but is really good.

Essentially any primary source (i.e. something an author actually wrote, not what someone wrote about them) is great to read. Look for stuff by Augustine, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Maximus the Confessor, Aquinas, Lombard, Vermigli, Luther, Calvin, etc.

A friend of mine just recommended this book to me yesterday! This is the book's description on Amazon:

In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins. Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.

It sounded quite interesting. Basically, the author compares the content from Genesis chapter one to other nations' writings on the origin of the world. He also writes that our modern thinking today views the creation story as the creation of the material world, but the original readers would have seen Genesis one as the creation of the functional world. More about organization and function of things, not origin of things.

Again, I have not read the book yet, but plan on it. It does use The Bible but compared with other theories and civilizations I believe. Just thought I'd share since I just found out about this book yesterday!

Short answer:
Buy one of the new ESV study bibles. It's very readable and has copious notes and references. If you ever want to use external references, a "King James Version", or "KJV" is very handy to have because so many reference works use it.

Less-short answer:
I am not an expert or a professional, but I am an interested amateur. I asked that same question myself a long time ago, and still years later learn more about the issues surrounding "bible versions" every month.

Different translations have different goals. Some are more literal and focus on translation of the words themselves. Some others are called dynamic and translate the intent of the words into modern equivalents. A common example would be the phrase "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law", which really doesn't have experiential meaning to us today. A literal translation would keep "jot and tittle" (or iota and keraia in Greek, Yod and kots in Hebrew), whereas a dynamic translation might say "dot of an i, or cross of a t", which would have more meaning for us while keeping the spirit of the original and being close in the actual wording as well. Then you have the paraphrase bibles that just reword it into very readable form, but not necessarily keeping the words or structure of the original. In the same example, a paraphrase might say "not even the tinest part". Rather than giving specific examples of each version type, just know that the search phrases would be "dynamic", "literal", and "paraphrase".

Also, if we had a clear "original", there would be far fewer versions. Everything we have is a copy, and there are so many manuscripts and fragments with slightly different readings, and what weight the translators place on the different manuscripts and or manuscript heritage determines what they're translating from, much less how they choose to translate it to the target language. The existence of so many manuscripts with slightly different portions in them has made more than one christian lose his faith. However, once you remove obvious copying errors, like the easy-to-make error of dropping of the end of a sentence and continuing from that same word in a later sentence, the similarities in the manuscripts is far larger than the differences. I have heard 99% is the same, but I don't know for sure.

One thing I'd like to mention is that when asking this question, eventually a KJV-onlyist person will answer, and try to scare you away from any non-KJV versions. Since you're not christian, it probably won't matter to you, but should you ever become a believer, I want to say that many of their arguments for the superiority of the KJV are not good arguments, though I won't go into a big list here. While most (including me) think the KJV is a good translation, KJV-onlyists have the opinion that any versions other than the KJV are designed to fill your head with lies.

Long-answer:
There are many books on this subject, and probably hundreds of Web sites.

Here is a multi-volume work of the history if the LDS church written by B.H. Roberts. It's like 80 years old so it is a bit outdated in a few areas.

Rough Stone Rolling is a biography of Joseph Smith written by Richard Bushman. It is generally considered to be the pretty good historically and is pretty well cited.

I also find Wikipedia to be a pretty good starting point for studying different topics in LDS history. Apparently there does end up being some editing wars for a lot topics so you have to be careful.

A new 4 volume narrative history of the LDS church has also been announced and will start coming out next year. That might end up being good.

Edit: just realised I didn't read your post well enough. I just gave you general history sources when you were asking for specific leads. Sorry about that. I hope someone else the info you're looking for.

Not OP, but audible might have Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. Some of her other books touch on Gnosticism as well.

If you like podcasts, The Secret History of Western Esotericism, has a few episodes on Gnosticism, although the whole podcast is really interesting. History of the Papacy also discusses Gnosticism in the context of the church's history. In Our Time also has an episode. Links for the others in my academic podcast/free uni class list.

You might also ask for recommendations in r/AskBibleScholars or r/academicbiblical.

Edit: just noticed you were looking for old sects in general. In that case, you'll find a lot in the list I linked — it's what got me interested in the historical criticism of Christianity in the first place. :) I'd also suggest Christianity: The First 3,000 Years. It's pretty popular, so there might be an audiobook. Iirc there's also a documentary.

I really liked The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It may not be what you're looking for because 1) the story involves humans making contact with aliens on their planet, rather than the other way 'round and 2) the outreach mission is run by the Jesuits, so the initial motivation for contact is religious as well as scientific, and so discussion of religious issues arises here and there.

All of that aside, it's a great book and it really gets at the assumptions we tend to make about alien life. The characters in the book make a lot of assumptions about the aliens, and the results are shocking and unexpected. It's more about change on individual level, rather than societal - but definitely worth a read.

The Catholic Church figures pretty heavily into the story, but doesn't come out looking all that great. It's not really a "pro-organized religion" sort of book.

Welcome! We believe that the Orthodox Church is the original Church founded by Jesus Christ, yes. The best way to get a good idea of what Orthodoxy is about is to visit a local parish near you, but here are some books that I would recommend:

The Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Way

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Know the Faith

On the topic of visiting a local parish - do you live in the US? If so, there is a great online search engine to help you locate nearby Orthodox churches.

'The Book of Genesis Illustrated' by R. Crumb is very good.

Reviews

“Starred Review. Crumb’s vivid visual characterizations of the myriad characters, pious and wicked, make the most striking impression. His distinctive, highly rendered drawing style imparts a physicality that few other illustrated versions of this often retold chronicle have possessed. The centenarian elders show every one of their years, and the women, from Eve to Rachel, are as solidly sensual as any others Crumb has so famously drawn.” (Booklist)

“To say this book is a remarkable volume or even a landmark volume in comic art is somewhat of an understatement.... stands on its own as one of this century’s most ambitious artistic adaptations of the West’s oldest continuously told story.” (Paul Buhle - The Jewish Daily Forward)

“It’s a cartoonist’s equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. It’s awesome. Crumb has done a real artist’s turn here—he’s challenged himself and defied all expectation. ... I’ve read Genesis before. But never have I found it so compelling. By placing it squarely in the Middle East—and populating it with distinctively Semitic-looking people—Crumb makes it come alive brilliantly.” (Susan Jane Gilman - Morning Edition, NPR)

“[A] beautifully drawn and relentlessly faithful rendition of the first 50 chapters of the Bible by an apostle of the 1960s and sometimes profane progenitor of underground comics. Crumb has produced what could be the ultimate graphic novel.” (David Colton - USA Today)

Thanks man I appreciate it. If you're looking to get one book, I highly recommend Brant Pitre's book "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ". Strange Notions also has a list that includes a number of good books on the subject of Jesus (scroll down till you hit the "Jesus" section). The founder of the site, Brandon Vogt, is a well known Catholic personality who loves books. So you can trust the titles listed over there to be good.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483

http://www.strangenotions.com/books/

I find study bibles to be the most helpful because they have very detailed notes at the bottom of each page as well as thorough introductions. That way, if you get hung up on something, there are references. Also, Bible Gateway allows you to type in a verse or book and see what other translations have for that verse. Very nice for comparison

Maybe Orthodox posters can provide a better opttion but on Amazon, this is the top Orthodox study bible

ESV study Bible is a favorite among a lot of r/Christianity posters

Good luck with your journey, brother

If you want something "religion compatible" you could look at Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. It's not perfect and has an erroneous section on the arrangement of the optic nerve; but, it's a decent read (I completely skipped the religious apologetics chapters). It should be easily digestible by anyone who vaguely remembers high school biology. I'm not sure it really explains evolution, though - it's been quite a while since I read it.

If he'll be turned off by light scientific jargon and criticism of religion you should definitely steer him clear of Why Evolution is True, as Coyne is pretty hard on religion - I mean, I agree with him but I think it occasionally detracts from an otherwise excellent book by straying a bit from the topic at hand.

This bone is called the baculum. Interestingly, some people use it as an argument about translations of one of the sources of the Bible (The j source. wrote most of genesis, exodus, and numbers).

The argument is that Eve wasn't made from a rib. When most translations say "rib", some people argue that this is a mistranslation of "baculum."

To see their evidence, look at your scrotum (If you don't have one, I'm sure someone will be eager to help). For most men, the scrotum has a line that runs down the center from the base of the penis to the perineum. This is a product of sexual differentiation of the fetus. In males, the proto-labia fuse together and the generic gonads descend into it, forming the scrotum and testicles.

The argument is that God took the baculum out of Adam to make Eve. Hence the "scar", and why humans don't have a baculum when most placental mammals do.

tl;dr: scrotums have lines from where god removed man's penis bone to make eve.

EDIT: I should probably say that I'm not an expert about this. My knowledge is not really from a religious perspective. What I know about the bible is primarily from 2 classes I took 2 years ago in freshman year out of personal interest, which were more about secular biblical scholarship (i.e., study about the book itself. sources, authorship, its history, dynamic vs static translations, etc) than religious study. You can't truly separate studying a religious text from studying its meanings and interpretations, but the class as a whole was from a secular and objective perspective.

Needless to say I'm not an expert about this type of stuff. This theory wasn't mentioned in the class; I saw it somewhere online (wikipedia maybe) and thought it was interesting. I don't think that it's a very well known argument, but it does explain some things that a direct, literal interpretation can't. For example, if you have a finger, ribs, a willing member of the opposite sex, and the ability to count, you may notice that men and women have the same number of ribs.

Ultimately, interpretations of the bible are probably as numerous as the people who read it (and those who clearly haven't). The earliest source (the J source), was written somewhere around the 10th century bce. That's 3000 years ago, twice as distant from the modern day as from the last of the mammoths. The whole thing was written over a span of centuries. It's full of contradictions, unclear references, and obvious falsehoods. The oldest version we have is the septuagint, which is in ancient greek. What few sources we have in biblical hebrew are, as one might expect, in biblical hebrew, which is dead and massively distant from modern hebrew, so translations are entirely subject to interpretation.

There's a lot we don't (and much we probably can't) know about the bible. There are tons of theories and interpretations to explain things that don't make sense. I thought the one about the baculum was interesting.

If you want to know more about this kind of stuff, read a bible designed for scholarship. For the old testament/hebrew bible, I recommend the JPS translation and the NRSV translation for the new testament (nrsv is good for both, but jps is better for the hebrew bible b/c it's from a jewish perspective). The links are for the versions I have, which are really good.

Use of Weapons and, everything else by Iain M. Banks. Amazing stuff. Trust me.

The Blade Itself and the rest of that series by Joe Abercrombie.

Altered Carbon and the rest of that series as well as Thirteen and The Steel Remains, and it's sequel (still waiting on book 3) by Richard K. Morgan. He's pretty amazing.

That would keep you busy for a long time and are all pretty amazing. Seconding Dune, which is amazing, and the Name of the Wind which is great but very popcorn.

But really, if you were to read everything by Iain M. Banks you would be a better person.

Edit: The Sparrow

Hello TheEvilAlex! Search google and find a local Catholic Church! Call them and ask to speak with a priest or the parish youth minister! Explain your situation and they will help you!

The best bible out there right now is the RSV:SCE from Ignatius! You can get the hardcover for under $20 here on amazon. You can download the bible for free on your iPhone/iPod/iPad here.

You don't have to sing the Psalms. Most people read them as poetry.

If you have questions, feel free to ask here or you can even text questions to 'Catholic Facts" a small ministry I run that answers questions about the Catholic faith. Our text line number is 810-37-FACTS.

Cheers!

It always surprises me how The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell has slipped under the radar of many. It's intense in places but extraordinarily well-written. It has a sequel that's not nearly as good (probably due to a publisher urging a rush job), but overall this is an amazing book. It's my number one favorite book, not just sci-fi book, for a variety of reasons. Very thoughtful, very vivid characters, very interesting descriptive detail. So realistic in places it almost doesn't feel like sci-fi.

I enjoyed Ascent by Jed Mercurio a lot. The opening chapter is more violent than I wish. I almost stopped reading, worrying the whole book would be that way, but it lightens up. The first chapter can, frankly, pretty much be skipped by anyone who doesn't like that kind of thing. The rest of the story was much more even and interesting. I have a feeling when I see the upcoming Apollo 18, if I even bother (I'm expecting bad reviews), I'm going to wish it was this story instead.

If you are interested in a religion friendly review of evolution that is 100% on board with the scientific consensus on evolution, I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution"

He is a devout catholic, molecular biologist, and textbook author. He spends the first half of the book explaining why scientific consensus views evolution as a fact, and why they are right about that. He spends the second half of the book explaining why that shouldn't threaten anyone's belief in God.

I read Dawkins' book on evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth" and liked it, but I think Miller is actually more convincing and intelligible on the truth of evolution in probably a third of the space. He also has the added benefit of not being an evangelical atheist or a retarded young earth creationist.

Ok.

Tell me about your childhood situation:

parents marital situation

financial situation

siblings

location(s)

Elaborate as much as you feel comfortable

EDIT:

yeah, you are an very conservative mormon, and somehow you think you didn't suffer childhood trauma. Okaaaaayyyyyyy.......

You do realize that parents long-term, consistently lying to their children is broadly accepted, and has been for a long time, as significantly traumatic to a child, right?

https://www.google.com/search?q=parents+lying+to+children+considered+trauma

and do some reading on something called NPD

https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/1476755566

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Always-About-You-Narcissism/dp/0743214285

https://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Oz-Other-Narcissists-Relationship/dp/0972072837

Instead of bottle-ing up your misgivings about devoting your entire life orientation around a gigantic lie your parents forced on you, you might try being honest with yourself and doing some actual research about the topic. Here's a good place to start if/when you summon up enough courage and honesty to do so:

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494

Obviously you're intelligent enough analytically to already realize that Mormonism is complete and total bullshit, yet you can't seem to accept it and move on. The problem seems to be you can't accept that your parents subverted your life for their own desires. Again, you'll find reading about NPD's effects on children very enlightening. I'll take a wild guess that there are some addiction and avoidant issues you need to address as well.

Here's a good start:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/special-reports/new-insights-narcissistic-personality-disorder/page/0/1

Ronningstam, Harvard U., and is considered one of the, if not the, best researchers in the world on NPD. Hopefully that measures up to your grandiose personal standards of quality research.

Btw, ADHD is one of the biggest garbage can diagnoses in modern medicine. Can't focus consistently DOES NOT automatically = ADHD. It's just as worthless a standalone dx as "irritable bowel syndrome". Amazingly, nearly every person with a personality disorder and/or significant addiction could also qualify for an ADHD diagnosis, if their other issues were not taken into consideration (DSM, flawed as it is, actually qualifies this in hierarchical diagnostic criteria, but I'm sure you already knew that from your super extensive personal research into ALL of psychology, psychiatry, and brain science, not just some reading about ADHD, right?).

Case studies are FULL of examples of zombie-fied children of religious-version narcissistic parents. You can plenty of case study books available for purchase online.

Good luck!

You've asked some pretty big questions. It'd be hard to answer them in a reddit comment. My primary recommendation would be to talk to your priest.

On the other hand, if you're not comfortable with that for some reason, maybe you could try to ask some more specific questions. If you just don't know what to ask, I recommend reading The Orthodox Way.

You can also try listening to some podcasts at Ancient Faith Radio.

If you'll indulge my curiosity - I am a convert, and it seems somewhat astonishing to me that you are asking this question :) How old are you, roughly? How is it that you are here with us (thank God!) and do not have more of an understanding of your faith? Please don't take offense at my question - the parish I attend is about half converts and has a wonderful Sunday School program for the youth. I understand this isn't the norm, but would just like to hear more about your circumstance. Thank you :)

When my daughter started hearing religious stories from her aunt, I bought R. Crumb's comic-book-style illustrated version of Genesis. I treated Noah's Ark and the talking snake just like other fun stories, you know, like Curious George and The Hungry Caterpillar. (You might want to dodge the part where Lot's daughters sleep with him.)

I also started telling Greek myths, like about how winter was caused because Demeter's daughter Persephone went into the underworld, and that made Demeter (goddess of all growing things) sad. I looked up a few so that I could tell them as bedtime stories.

There are so many silly, harmless, fictional stories we tell kids. Throw religion right into that mix and it dilutes it. Don't make it scary or different. Make it part and parcel of the rich fantasy life that kids have. Then when you bring reality in on all of those stories, as your child gets old enough to think about story fiction versus real and true, religion will wash away with the rest.

That's my theory anyway, and I feel it's worked well on my now seven-year-old.

The US Catholic Church uses the New American Bible, so that's the translation you'll be hearing at Mass if you're in the US. So, just search New American Bible and go with that. I would even recommend getting a study Bible to help you understand what's happening and how things relate to other parts of the Bible, because it can be confusing. Just as a recommendation, this one is fantastic.


There are quite a few sources on understanding the Mass. I would look up the Order of the Mass and maybe try reading through that and following along during Mass, so you understand what is being said and also know what to say.


The Catechism is fantastic. Here is a pretty safe bet on getting started with reading that and something to use as reference.


If you're interested in reading the Summa Theologica, there are shorter versions like Summa of the Summa, which, while still not too short, condense down the most important information and make it easier for somebody without as much time to at least get the general idea.


Good luck on your journey, as I am currently doing the same and am in RCIA, but I've been doing my research for quite a while and am very excited for the coming year!

Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Lyman Bushman:

http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532


The best researched biography of Joseph Smith by an award winning historian who taught at Harvard, Columbia and BYU who is also an active believing Latter-day Saint.


Edit: If you like archaeology and the Book of Mormon, then try Mormon Codex by John L. Sorenson:

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book/dp/1609073991/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450660578&sr=1-1&keywords=Mormon+Codex

I would also recommend starting with Mark, I definitely found it the easiest to read when I was younger.

In terms of philosophy and theology, it really depends on how well read OP is and how long they've been interested in both subjects. I found McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction (there are cheaper editions) and Guthrie's Christian Doctrine to be good high school level theology intros.

For intermediate, maybe William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith?

If OP has a longstanding interest in and has studied philosophy—note "theology lately, and philosophy"—there's no reason not to start with advanced stuff like The City of God or parts of the Summa.

Since you know about Richard Carrier I would assume you already have read some of the well known Anti-religionists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Stenger, etc. If you are talking about secular biblical scholarship and historical analysis there isn't anyone who keeps me interested as much as Carrier, but I haven't read much in that subject. Some others include Robert Price and Bart Erhman.

There are several good essay compilations by John Loftus which are more generally directed at Christianity. They include essays by Carrier and Robert Price and a number of other secular thinkers. The Christian Delusion I think is the first in that series. Hitchens's The Portable Atheist is another good collection which includes older writing aimed at all religion. Bertrand Russell is a great, too.

1. Have I always been an atheist? No, I was raised in protestant christianity.
   
2. If you have not always been an atheist, what were you before and what changed your mind? First? Learning science and realizing that I could prove that the Bible is fallible through independent analysis of reality, rather than depending on what other fallible people told me was true in contradiction to what I can prove to be true. Second? Realizing that not only is the Bible fallible, but that it is massively self-contradictory ... which led to: Third? Discovering conclusively that the Bible is a hodge-podge of mythological tales that have been edited, redacted, and cobbled together numerous times over the last ~28-2900 years to serve the agenda of men ... which led to: Fourth? Discovering that christianity as it is known today didn't exist some 19-2000 years ago, and that what you currently practice has very little in common to what christians in the first century CE practiced and/or believed ... which led to: Fifth? Discovering with an almost perfect certainty that Jesus never existed as a human being, and that the people that lived in the early to middle of the first century CE never believed that he did ... Paul certainly didn't, and he wrote the first books that were later included in the new testament.
   
3. If today, Jesus Christ appeared to you directly and showed you that He exists, would you be willing to follow Him and His teachings for the duration of your life? Why or why not? Why say "Jesus Christ"? This is as likely as saying that the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Xenu might appear in front of me to demand the same thing, and just as ridiculous a hypothetical. So, let me ask you a much more pertinent question:
   
4. What would it take for you to reconsider your faith in christianity? I can reasonably prove that Jesus never existed and is a historicized mythological construct based upon first century mystery religions syncretized with messianic Judaism (read me). I can absolutely prove that the old testament was redacted multiple times based upon the political and religious views of the time of the redaction/edit (read me). I can absolutely prove that the creation myth of Judaism was based in Canaanite mythology and later was syncretized during the Babylonian captivity (i.e., it's bullshit) and that life evolved through natural processes (read me). I can point to thousands of contradictions, impossibilities, and outright lies in your "holy book" which undermine any claims made by any of the Abrahamic religions (which is a funny title, given the absolute certainty that Abraham never existed ... nor did Moses, or any number of other prominent figures in Judeo-Christian historical mythology). I can point to the faith of members of any other religion, note that it's no weaker than the faith you have in your own, and point out that faith alone in the face of reason proves nothing. I mean ... I could go on forever on this subject, but honestly: you're asking us what it would take for us to believe, when in reality the more important question is what it would take for you to stop believing a tall tale simply because someone told you it was true in the face of actual, verifiable reality.
   
   For my part, I'd believe that Santa Claus was real if I could objectively, scientifically, and reliably demonstrate such a claim. I'd believe that Vishnu, Horus, Odin, or Zeus were real for the same reasons. In fact, I can conjure up any number of fanciful scenarios in which strange, supernatural claims could be verified and "believed" by atheists, because that's how we operate: we believe in reality, however strange it may be. Just because such a fanciful scenario can be imagined, however, doesn't give that scenario any sort of validity. Your claims are as baseless as someone that wants me to believe they have an invisible and undetectable dragon in their garage that will burn my invisible and undetectable spirit FOR ETERNITY if I don't fork over 10% of my income and obey their every incomprehensible and often immoral edict. So put yourself in the position that you so "cleverly" thought you'd put us in: what would change your mind?
   
   Oh, wait ... you don't even want to question your "faith"? That's what I thought.
   
   edit: Watch this, pause, and reflect on your beliefs.