You cheated and that can't be taken back. I would suggest you do research in the phsycology behind why you felt the need to cheat. Most couples can satisfy about 80% of their partners needs and wants. You may have felt compelled to cheat because the other woman offered the 20% your wife doesn't and it feels shiny and new. That shiny newness will go away eventually. Chasing the "golden haired woman" is a mistake. You are most likely not in love with this other woman. You probably have a love for the newness and the heightened levels of dopamine your brain gives you for finding a new mate. Again that will go away.


10 years ago you loved your wife enough to commit vows to spend a lifetime together. Think about that. YOU LOVED SOMEONE SO MUCH THAT YOU VOWED TO STAY WITH HER TILL DEATH! That woman is still there. Taking your marriage to a non-monogamous point just so you can continue your affair is very shady and doesn't solve the real problem. It will most likely tear you two apart due to the mistrust, and there is no guarantee that your wife will be open to non-monogamy.


Divorcing your wife would be a mistake as well. First she didn't do anything wrong so you shouldn't want to hurt her. Second your kids deserve better.


This will be an unpopular opinion but NEVER TELL HER YOU CHEATED! Why? Because it will tear her heart out. I've been cheat on before. It hurts... A lot! Don't put her through that, and don't pull the I need to clear my conscious BS either. Breaking her heart so you can feel better is despicable. And don't for one second think leaving your wife for this other woman will somehow be a better option. She has already shown you she is OK with cheating because she knows about your wife. Plus she knows you are a cheater and the whole relationship would be built on mistrust.


You need to leave the other woman and go back to your wife and family. Be the man she deserves and put effort into re-igniting the passion that you had when you married her. If you are feeling the flame dim on the passion and romance you better believe that she does too. Talk to her. Find things you can do to bring that flame back.


Here are some starter suggestions
-Does she like shopping? Take her shopping! Go with her. Yeah its boring to be a man in a Woman's shoe store, but I bet you did it while dating. Its not about spending money its about spending time.


-Is there an activity she wants to do but you don't like IE: hiking or swimming or a road trip. Do it for her. I'm not saying do something you will regret, but something small that she is into and you have declined in the past.
Real life example: My wife wanted to drive 400 miles on a particular freeway because it was a "scenic drive". I hated the idea and she knew it, but she loves that I did it anyway for her. I'm not saying be a pushover and do everything that she wants all the time, but let her have those moments from time to time.


-Do you have a little extra padding? Start exercising and very subtlety let her know its because you want to look as sexy as you can for her. Do not suggest she join your exercising but do invite her if she asks to join. Do not try to be her coach. Let her make any fitness mistakes she wants if she joins your routine. Unless of course she is doing something that will hurt her.


-Sit down and have a long talk about how you feel. Be careful not to verbally attack her. This is where "I" statements help.
"I feel that we could have more passion", "I want to know what I can do to strengthen our relationship", "I feel like we could do more to strengthen our bond", "I want to [any action or result] and want your help/opinion to achieve [said action or result] ect. If you use the word "you" then that talk may turn into a fight. Example of what not to say- "You never do [ ] anymore", "You do [ ] to much", ect. you get the idea.


So much can be achieved when couples just sit down and express what they are feeling inside. What to take a giant leap of faith? Ask her this question " What is it like being married to me"... I know terrifying. Then shut up and listen. Do not argue and do not interrupt. No "yes buts". Internalize what she tells you. Acknowledge what you have done wrong and express a desire to work with her as a team to resolve anything.


-Couples/ Marriage counseling or similar third party interventions. Most couples shy away from this sort of thing but it helps. You don't have to go for long periods of time. Even one session will go a long way towards helping. Here is a book that I think would help. http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Revised-Updated-Discovering/dp/1400200393 and here is the female side http://www.amazon.com/Captivating-Revised-Updated-Unveiling-Mystery/dp/1400200385/ref=pd_sim_b_1 You should read them both. Yes they have Christian ties but even if you are not a Christian the ideas and principles are still very valid. There is also a boot camp that goes with the book and if you can attend/ afford it you and your wife should go. Here is the link. http://www.ransomedheart.com/allies-home . I promise you the bootcamp it not a touchy feely lets hug and have a talk about our feelings event. It is a "this is how to be an awesome man" fun filled weekend. Campfires, cigars, gormet meals, archery, guns, and outdoor man movies to go with what they teach. Whatever you choose to do don't be embarrassed to seek guidance from a professional.


-When you two have sex do you make love passionately? or are you just masturbating inside her? Don't use her for sex... Give her what only you as a loving husband can give to her. Massage her body, caress her legs, smack that ass, run scratch marks down her back, whisper sexy dirty things in her ear, dust off your tongue and give without receiving. I don't know what she likes but you do. If for some reason you don't then ask her to guide you. Make her feel like a sex god. I challenge you to only penetrate when she is so turned on that she won't take no for an answer.


-Kids taking all your time? Get a sitter or send them to summer camp or a similar event that gets them away from you for several days. Your kids are important but so is your wife. A loving healthy relationship with her is great for your kids to see. Don't put your kids before your wife! She should hold more importance. Set a weekly time that you spend with only your wife. No kids allowed. It can be as simple as one night a week that the kids can't be in the living room while you two enjoy the TV (or other activities) just the 2 of you. And be firm if they try to butt in or suddenly start doing things to get your attention. Same goes for pets. Get them away.


There is a ton of other things but these are the basics and the overall idea is to spend more time with your wife. If you are having trouble finding that wonderful person you fell in love with then you better search harder. If you can't find gold with a shovel then you better get a bulldozer.


I promise you any effort you put into your wife and marriage will be reciprocated in full. It probably won't be instant, but she will respond in kind. This is about you too. You are going to feel fantastic knowing you can offer her your strength and power and love as a man.


Last point- Non-monogamy in all its forms is not a bandage that fixes troubled relationships. It is an experience that two loving people choose to do together to enhance what is already a healthy strong relationship. If/When you bring back that flame and you start seeing your wife as the "golden haired" woman then you can try non-monogamy. Do it as a team, together as a loving trusting couple. My wife and I swing. Not because we need things from other people, but because we enjoy sharing the experience.


I hope this does not come across and condemning or condescending. I believe in redemption and I wish you the very best of luck.



TL:DR: Don't take the easy rode. Fight for your wife.

I know that this might not be exactly what you were looking for, but here's my story, which I hope might help. I appreciate your open mind and willingness to seek answers, and your question is quite welcome here. (This response blossomed into quite a long post! I hope you'll read it anyhow.)

I was raised in a loosely Christian household by a working single mother who worked several jobs to support us, with grandparents who were Christian. I often went to a Methodist church, never learned much, but considered myself a 'believer'. When I was a teenager, as we all do, I began to rebel and question everything. The pivotal moment came when I approached our pastor and asked him a pointed question. I don't recall the exact wording, but I believe I asked something along the lines of "How do we know anything in the Bible is true, and not just some fairy tale made up by people hundreds of years ago?" His response, which at the time seemed terse, was essentially, "Because I said so." I stopped being a 'Christian' that day.

I spent about six or eight years after that, bouncing from one ideology to another. I was Wiccan, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist/Agnostic, and probably a few I'm forgetting. I considered myself worldly, intelligent, and smart enough to figure it all out on my own. I didn't need a God, and I certainly didn't need any more pastors. I thought that people who had faith were somehow broken, inferior, and clinging to a fantasy to make up for their lackluster reality. I spent many many hours debating - antagonizing and belittling - a high school acquaintance, criticizing his beliefs and questioning his logic. Despite my obnoxious insistence, he never backed down, and always seemed to enjoy having discussions with me about faith and Christianity.

The Truth found me when I was 21. However, I have to preface this part of my story by conceding that I cannot - and do not - advocate this way of finding faith. I would probably question the validity of a person's faith if this was their story, but it is true none the less. About a year before I actually found Truth, God sent me an angel. She was cute, smart, and she enjoyed challenging me. I think the only reason we kept talking was to debate faith, but neither of us really expected to convince the other. She would later refer to this as evangelistic dating. Anyhow, I started to fall for her, and so for a while I pretended to agree with her faith. I figured, I could talk the talk and fake it for my whole life, if it meant I got to keep this hottie.

We had met, but we were dating long-distance for a while, and I even started going to church. I went back to a Methodist church, which appealed to me mostly for the music, as the hymns brought me back to happier times with my grandparents, and it felt great to walk right in and know all the songs. I even joined the choir. I still hadn't found Truth, but I kept up the act. Some unexpected life changes caused me to relocate, and soon I was living near my girlfriend, and we continued dating.

I will never forget the night that Truth found me, and not only because I felt the blessing of the Holy Spirit. It was October 31st, 2005 - Halloween. It started with a bit of a fight, because I just thought it was plain stupid that her mother wouldn't allow her siblings to trick-or-treat or do anything with Halloween, because it was of the devil or something like that. We were debating fiercely, and I don't even remember at which point it happened. I think I may even have been winning the argument, but the impact on me had very little to do with the actual discussion.

God touched my heart. I know that sounds silly, especially to those that haven't felt that, and it is hard to explain, but I felt the Holy Spirit within my body, and I knew with absolute certainty that Christ was real and with me. God reached inside me, grabbed onto my fears and doubts and ignorance, and freed me from them all. I was overwhelmed by it, and I began to sob. Now, I'm a big guy, and I don't cry. I mean, I just don't! I certainly don't weep spontaneously during an intellectual argument. This was a profound moment. I knew that Christ was the Truth which I had been searching for, and he found me.

From that moment forward, I opened my heart and my mind. I still consider myself a 'beginner' Christian, and I certainly don't know half the Bible, but God is in my heart and in my life. I have sought him intellectually for quite some time, and I will always be learning. I have found that you simply cannot convince someone of God's existence using strictly logical arguments. I can certainly talk to someone about the stories of the Bible, I can discuss historical facts, and I can tell people how I feel, but it takes faith to believe in God.

One book that I enjoyed, which you might wish to read, is called I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler. I picked it up mostly because it sounded absurd, and I thought it would be a bit different from the dry rhetoric which is the norm. TL;DR: Geisler makes a case for God based upon simple logical concepts. Both Christians and scientists believe that the world appeared out of nowhere (the Big Bang), and it makes more sense that was the work of a creator rather than a meaningless 'something out of nothing'. The whole of Creation contains such infinite complexity, that to think that 'natural selection' and other phenomena could give rise to the current ecosystem of this planet requires more faith than to believe in a Creator. (A great example is The Queen of Trees, a PBS documentary about the African fig tree.) Also, evolutionary science is based on things like DNA similarities between creatures, which I believe to be the fingerprints of a single divine Creator. To believe that those similarities are due more to an incredible natural game of chance takes a lot of faith! If any of that interests you, I'd recommend picking up that book.

In the end, we all have faith. Either God exists, God does not exist, or it doesn't matter. It all starts there. I have sought the Truth with my heart and mind, and I have faith, and nothing else makes sense to me. I saw how wretched I was toward my 'friend' in high school, and I reached out to apologize, but I can't begrudge him for not embracing me. Instead I got a fairly lukewarm 'oh, good for you'. I lost track of that one pastor, but I know now that he was young and inexperienced (very new to our church), and he was unable or unwilling to provide a simple answer and thought that I would just accept his statements. I don't hold it against him either. We are all fallible and sinful, but we are one with Christ. Oh, and I married that girl. I question Christianity all the time, and I sometimes wonder if it is all a bunch of baloney, but every time I return to God with a stronger faith. Faith in Christ is a journey, a lifelong experience, and not a singular state of existence. I am a Christian.

> How did you come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

The person making a positive claim assumes the burden of proof. Your Christian friend rejected the null hypothesis that {supernatural deities exist} and accepted the alternate hypothesis that {supernatural deities exists}. What evidence is there to support/justification of the null hypothesis and accept the alternate?

Ask your friend to please present the reasons they believe in the God Horus. If you have evidence to support Horus as your God, evidence that is verifiable and falsifiable, or a philosophical argument that can actually be shown to be linked to a natural physicalistic causality-limited universe, evidence that is not an emotional or feeling based subjective experience based upon confirmation bias from prior knowledge of what your "God" image may be, please feel free to present it.

How is that justification for belief in Horus coming along?

I don't think the Christian believes in Horus. And this is the basis for the atheism worldview.

It's not so much the evidence that one can provide (unless you will accept the 'lack of evidence' as evidence) for atheism. Rather it is such an overwhelming lack of any credible evidence that one can identify, or is put forth by others, to support a belief in supernatural deities. One cannot justify rejection of the null hypothesis that {supernatural deities do not exist} and accept/justify/support the alternative hypothesis that {supernatural deities do exist}.

It is possible to argue that this same position can be used for a theist to justify their belief structure over other differing theistic positions, as many theists claim that they believe based upon a feeling or emotion and/or have Religious Faith (i.e., religious belief without evidence) that supernatural deities are real and that their religious belief in supernatural deities is correct.

However, this position of Religious Faith for their own religious worldview is often the same reason they do not subscribe or believe in many other theistic worldviews - there is no evidence to support belief in the supernatural deities of other religious worldviews; they do not have Faith in other supernatural deities. For example, do adherents to any of the following example supernatural deity triads accept or propose belief in the existence of the other triads listed to which they do not have Religious Faith (or belief without evidence)?

• Egyptian: Osiris, Isis, Horus<br />

• Canaanite – Early Israelite: El the Father God, Asherah the Wife/Consort (depicted as a Serpent), Baal-Hadad
  
• Hindu Trimurti: Brahma - the Creator, Vishnu - the Maintainer, Shiva - the Destroyer
  
• Olympian Greek Religion: Zeus, Athena, Apollo
  
• Roman Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
  
• Sumerian: Anu, Ea, Enlil
  
• Babylonian: Shamash, Ishtar, Tammuz
  
• Christianity: Yahweh, Holy Spirit, Jesus
  
  Related statement concerning the belief in "God": We are all functionally atheists, there just is no evidence to justify support of one, or more, (depending on mono- vs. poly-theistic beliefs) supernatural deity(ies) than a Christian, a theist does.
  
  > Return and repent before its too late. Death may be around the corner...
  
  Pascal's Wager? But let's take that self-serving piece of shit statement at face value - What is the purpose of an infinite eternity in Heaven?
  
  Why? Or better, why strive for Heaven?
  
  What is Heaven? According to Christianity, heaven is the purpose of all things. Heaven is the reason we live. Heaven is the reason Christ came and the reason he died for our sins. Heaven is the motivator of all of the apostles. Nothing is more important than heaven. Family, love, money, all of these things come second to heaven. [Source]
  
  Then;
  
  What is the purpose of Heaven? Heaven is life in its perfected state. We, as creatures of God, are not designed to live in an imperfect world. We are designed to live in a world free from the corruption of sin. We are designed to live in the presence of God where we are free to worship, socialize, and discuss. This life is only a temporary existence. Heaven is where we can exist forever. The day heaven’s gates are opened is the day we begin our lives, not here on earth. The purpose of heaven is to provide a place for us to live. [Source]
  
  Then;
  
  What is the purpose of living for eternity in a perfected state with God? In a perfected state with God to provide all it would be Eternally Perfect (and ultimately, Undifferentiated) Bliss, all there is to be known would become known; eternal life in Heaven would quickly become static, unchanging, unremarkable and boring spent in worship of God. Eternal life is ultimately pointless and without merit.
  
  The real question is: Ultimately, what is the difference between heaven and hell?
  
  Nothing. Against an infinite eternity, Heaven and Hell are interchangeable.
  
  ----
  
  Here are some suggestions for Christian debate topics:
  
  
• The actions attributed to God in the bible are all of a positive morality
  
• Yahweh is and always been the one and only true God
  
• The purpose of an infinite eternity in heaven and why that purpose is good for those in heaven
  
• Evidence to support the mind-body dualism of a soul
  
• Evidence to support that the Christian God is the creator of the universe and still intervenes within the universe in a meaningful way
  
• Present a coherent definition of God and show how free will is possible (or impossible) under that construct
  
• Evidence to support the resurrection of Christ that is non-Biblical
  
• Why has prayer never resulted in the healing of an amputee to include at least one healed and fully finctional bone joint?
  
• How the conclusion of the parable of the Ten Minas concludes with a positive morality:
  
  Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.
  
  
• Genesis 3 (if you are a Genesis literalist) - Justify Christian morality against the Serpent (or Adversary) giving humankind morality (knowledge of good and evil) when God/Yahweh had decreed that humankind was not to have morality (forbid humans to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil).
  
• Why the divine or inspired word of God and Christ and the Spirit was so directed and appropriate for a small low-population tribe of desert dwellers with it's late bronze age/early iron age society applies to today's society.
  
• Why the overwhelming majority of Christians, in the one true religion for the one true and only God, seem to be only located in geo-political-socio-groups that they were born, and indoctrinated, into rather than distributed throughout other regions where other religions are prominent.
  
• Does God have free will?
  
• Why worship a God, Yahweh/YHWH, as the one true and only mono-theistic God when all historical documentation shows that Yahweh did not start out as anything more than a subordinate desert rain/fertility/warrior god to the Canaanite/Ugarit people that would later become known as Israelites (and hence to Jews and from there Christians and Muslims). During the period that Genesis and Exodus (1450-1410 BCE'ish) were (supposedly) being written, represented a time when the religion of the region was still in convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism) of the polytheistic triad of the most prominent Canaanite and Ugarit Gods: El (the father God), Asherah (goddess, wife or companion to El), and Baal (storm/rain God, son of El) [though there is reference in Ugarit documents to Yahweh also being one of the sons of El] to the monolatry of the storm/rain God Yahweh and from there to monotheistic worship where Yahweh took the supreme position. References to Gods that predate, and are contemporary to, Yahweh can be found throughout the old testament.
  
  More online references with discussion the origin of the monotheistic God of Israel:
  
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel
  
• The Origins and Gradual Adoption of Monotheism Amongst the Ancient Israelites
  
• The evolution of God
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
  Other:
  
  
• The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith
  
• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  

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.

Former fedora atheist here. For a long time, I felt like I belonged to the "skeptical, rational, atheist" tribe. But at one point I became disillusioned with the crowd, and realized that I no longer want to be part of it. I started looking for alternatives, groups I'd want to be a part of, and I settled upon Catholicism. I first approached it from a purely secular perspective, as a serious and reliable institution. But I ended up accepting the faith and God as well.

Here's my progression, what drew me in more and more:

I. The intellectual life. I was always fascinated by science. It was interactions with promoters of dishonest creationism (usually evangelicals) that originally pushed me towards rejecting religion and to become a militant atheist.

Then I read a book that changed how I view the relation between Church and science: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. I now follow @catholiclab and similar profiles on Twitter, which post interesting facts about Catholic scientists. It's simply astounding how this information is completely absent from contemporary popular culture.

II. Just on an emotional level, feeling "closer" to Catholics. It helped that my family is Catholic. On YouTube, I've watched many videos by Bishop Robert Barron, Fr. Mike. They are very lucid and reasonable in addressing contemporary issues. I'm sure there are many others.

I'm also reading biographies of martyrs who died persecuted in modernity by revolutionary ideologies. My TODO reading list includes books by Thomas Merton, Joseph Ratzinger, and the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola.

III. The aesthetics. I'm subscribed on Twitter to profiles like @Christian8Pics which post a lot of inspiring imagery. Familiarity breeds liking. I also listen to music on YouTube: liturgy, Medieval chants, Mozart's Requiem, Byzantine chants (usually Eastern Orthodox).

All these sideways might seem very strange to a Catholic convert or someone raised Catholic who stayed Catholic. But if someone is immersed in a materialistic, mechanistic and atheistic worldview, there's no available grammar or impulse to even take God or the life of the Church into consideration.

IV. Actually knowing what theism is all about. The "god" dismissed by popular atheist debaters is a caricature of God as understood by classical theism and the actual tradition of the Church. So is the "god" argued for by Intelligent Design proponents, biblical literalists, fundamentalists.

I read 2 books by Edward Feser (Catholic) and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) to finally become comfortable with this very simple point. The books I read are, in order:

By Edward Feser:

• The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
  
  
• Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)
  
  By David Bentley Hart:
  
  
• Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
  
  
• [The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss] (https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300209355)
  
  Each author has his own biases, which might trip the reader up at times (Hart is biased against evolutionary psychology for some reason). But these books produced in me a fresh view of where to begin seeking for God. They gave me the confidence to proceed.
  
  Atheism always addresses "god" as if it's simply one entity among others, part of the natural world, for which one ought to find physical traces and then one simply "believes in the existence of god" (much like you'd believe there's a car parked outside your house, once you look out the window and observe it's there -- meaning it could just as well NOT be there).
  
  Creationists just muddy the waters with "god of the gaps" and "Paley's watch" style theories, which simply postulate "god" as an explanation for why this or that aspect of the natural world is a certain way, a tinkerer god which molds the physical world into shape, or which created it at some point in the past.
  
  This has nothing to do with how God is presented by the authors I quoted, and they go to great lengths to make this point.
  
  I started by understanding that there needs to be an ultimate answer to certain metaphysical questions which, by definition, can't have a physical answer (e.g. "why does there exist a physical world in the first place?"). There's a qualitative difference between physical questions and metaphysical ones, and the gap simply can't be breached by adding more layers of physicality. Hart makes this point very well (he differentiates between the Demiurge that deists, atheists and creationists discuss, and God as the "necessary being" of classical theism).
  
  The ultimate metaphysical cause is "necessary" because it's simply a necessity for the physical world to have a non-physical cause which keeps it in existence. If the only thing that existed was a quantum field that didn't produce any particles, or a single proton that always existed and will always exist, the "necessity" would be exactly the same. Nothing would change even if it turned out our Universe is part of a Multiverse.
  
  Then, through reasoning, one can deduce certain characteristics of this ultimate answer, which ends up forming the classical theistic picture of God as a "necessary being" which continuously creates every aspect of the physical universe. Feser is very good at explaining this part and especially at underlining how tentative and feeble our understanding of the unfathomable is. He also explains why it has to be a "being" rather than an unknown impersonal cause. It's a humbling experience.
  
  But as Bishop Robert Barron stated in his interview on the Rubin Report, philosophy only takes you halfway there. Looking back, the existence of God simply makes sense and is a no-brainer. Faith doesn't have to do with "accepting that God exists with no evidence". Faith is about what you do once you realize that the existence of God is an inescapable conclusion of rational thought. What do you do once you realize that He exists and is conscious of us? You have to go beyond the impersonal, and engage, interact. Here's where prayer, the liturgical life and spiritual exercises come into play.
  
  Unlike conversion, faith isn't a one-time historical event, it's a daily effort on one's part to drive one's thoughts towards the infinite and the ultimate cause of everything. This requires individual effort, but it is not an individual venture. One has the entire tradition and life of the Church to guide you: selfless persons who dedicated their lives to help people like you and me.
  
  Here's how Feser, in his "Last Superstition" book, describes the various ways of conceiving of God:
  
  >To understand what serious religious thinkers do believe, we might usefully distinguish five gradations in one’s conception of God:
  
  >1. God is literally an old man with a white beard, a kind if stern wizard-like being with very human thoughts and motivations who lives in a place called Heaven, which is like the places we know except for being very far away and impossible to get to except through magical means.
  
  >2. God doesn’t really have a bodily form, and his thoughts and motivations are in many respects very different from ours. He is an immaterial object or substance which has existed forever, and (perhaps) pervades all space. Still, he is, somehow, a person like we are, only vastly more intelligent, powerful, and virtuous, and in particular without our physical and moral limitations. He made the world the way a carpenter builds a house, as an independent object that would carry on even if he were to “go away” from it, but he nevertheless may decide to intervene in its operations from time to time.
  
  >3. God is not an object or substance alongside other objects or substances in the world; rather, He is pure being or existence itself, utterly distinct from the world of time, space, and things, underlying and maintaining them in being at every moment, and apart from whose ongoing conserving action they would be instantly annihilated. The world is not an independent object in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to “go away”; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when he plays and vanishes the moment he stops. None of the concepts we apply to things in the world, including to ourselves, apply to God in anything but an analogous sense. Hence, for example, we may say that God is “personal” insofar as He is not less than a person, the way an animal is less than a person. But God is not literally “a person” in the sense of being one individual thing among others who reasons, chooses, has moral obligations, etc. Such concepts make no sense when literally applied to God.
  
  >4. God as understood by someone who has had a mystical experience of the sort Aquinas had.
  
  >5. God as Aquinas knows Him now, i.e. as known in the beatific vision attained by the blessed after death.
  
  What I've been talking about is at #3. Atheists and creationists are debating #1 and #2. #4 is a gift to be accorded by grace, and is what people strive for in their spiritual life. #5 is the ultimate goal of the Christian life.

>TL;DR I'm a Catholic who doesn't understand Catholicism

You know, as unfortunate as it is, the reality is that you will find many Catholic adults who have no clue what the Catholic Faith teaches.

Do you have an active youth group? If so, you may want to consider joining the youth group and becoming an active member. Also see if they will give you a Catechism of the Catholic Church for free. I hand those suckers out all of the time.

>I still don't really know what confirmation means. They did a horrible job at educating me, I basically sat there through general religious education, all of which I knew before, and then after 2 years, I got some oil on my forehead. I know that it basically means that I'm an adult in the church, but not quite sure what that entitles...

Again, unfortunately the adults that were "teaching" you probably had no clue what Confirmation is either. But a correction would be that you are not "an adult" in the Church. This is a common misconception in the American Catholic Church, mostly because the norm for Christian Rites of Initiation for many Dioceses separate Baptism and Confirmation. In many other places around the world, a child receives Baptism and Confirmation at the same time.

Now, the Catechism says: 1308 Although Confirmation is sometimes called the "sacrament of Christian maturity," we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need "ratification" to become effective. St. Thomas reminds us of this:

Age of body does not determine age of soul. Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity: as the book of Wisdom says: "For old age is not honored for length of time, or measured by number of years. "Many children, through the strength of the Holy Spirit they have received, have bravely fought for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.

I understand Confirmation as a completion of Baptism. The minister of Confirmation seals you with the Holy Spirit and "unlocks" the "full power" and blessing that was started in your soul in Baptism.

>As far as I can tell, most of the Dogmas of the Catholic church are pretty reasonable, so I don't have a problem with many of them.

Good!

>However, what gets me is the "Pick and Choose" part of the dogmas. I understand why that is there (people that pick and choose believing in core Catholic beliefs), but I'm pretty sure that the word of the clergy isn't 100% accurate with the wishes of God, since there has been corruption before, in the long history of the church, and in the recent history of the church.

I am not quite certain what you are asking here. Catholics cannot "pick and choose" which Dogmas to follow and which to not follow. Dogmas are essential to our Faith.

You are correct that sometimes the Clergy will make mistakes and they will not preach the fullness of Truth to their parishes. We can trust the Magisterium, though.

There has been corruption in the people of the Church, yes. The recent scandals still sting all of us Catholics to the Core of our being. I, myself, am still trying to reconcile how the most respected of our Fold could betray us in such a way. But I know that the reasons behind the pedophilia scandal are many and they are varied and they are not exclusive to the Catholic Church.

I also understand that 50 years ago, Bishops sincerely did not know how to handle allegations of this magnitude and did what they thought was best. In many cases, the Bishops had their priest sent to a psychologist and listened to what the psychologist told them. You would think that common sense would tell the Bishops to hand the accused clergy over to the local authorities for an investigation, but we have to remember that it was a very different time back then. I do not make excuses for the bishops or priests, nor do I presume that I can even entertain the thought of justifying their actions; not at all. But I do know that there is always more to the story than what we hear reported on the news.

>Though I can't think of a specific thing for the prior statement, an example I previously felt about this was purgatory. I heard that it was worse than hell, but a Religion teacher at my school enlightened me by asking me the question: "If we don't know what it is, just that it is a spiritual cleansing, couldn't it be relaxing as a day of personal cleansing, such as at a spa?"

I do not know who told you Purgatory was worse than hell. They were clearly wrong. Purgatory is a part of Heaven. But I do not think it is relaxing as a day of cleansing, like the spa. I think it is very painful. We must suffer to rid ourselves of "self" so that we might love God more.

>At my church, every sermon is about politics, with a radical right-wing viewpoint on it in general. Is it like that everywhere?

Not at all. In fact, many parishes in my area refuse to comment on politics. Instead, they comment on morality, which should guide the way we vote and participate in government.

>What is the official Catholic stance on gay people? My church is SUPER anti-gay, but I have a few openly gay friends at school, and nobody gives a crap. I understand that they aren't allowed marriage because of the Catholic definition of marriage, but would the church condemn another type of union under a different title for political and financial reasons? Chaste, of course...

Read Same Sex Attraction: Church Teaching and Pastoral Practice to understand more on the subject. But you may also notice that nobody at your school "gives a crap" if their friends are having sex, or getting pregnant, or having abortions. Does this justify their behavior?

The Church would indeed condemn any union between a same-sex couple. Why? Because the Church does not look only at the material reasons for the union (political, financial). The Church cares more for the spirituality of the persons involved and wants the salvation of their souls. How can these people be saved if they believe that their immoral actions are sanctioned by the government? How can these people come to know, love, and serve Christ in this life if they think they are doing nothing wrong? The Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Nothing will ever make those actions "good."

>I understand the process of confession and the method, but I'm a bit unclear about what I'm supposed to confess. It's impossible for me to remember every transgression that I make, so I generally try to focus on major ones (10 commandments), with a generalized perspective, (I'm sure I did this at some point in time). I feel kinda awkward asking about this anywhere else but reddit...

You confess all the sins that you can recall. It is a good practice for you to do an examination of conscience each night before you go to bed so that you might be able to make a better confession on your next visit. It is very good to start with the Ten Commandments. The Church recommends you confess every mortal sin first, then your venial sins. Finding a good examination of conscience to aid your prayer might help.

>Catholics don't believe that the bible is 100% true, literal translation, do they? I've heard it both ways, but I'm more comfortable with the definition of the bible being a message of spiritual truth, not literal truth.

No, Catholics do believe that the Bible is the "100% true, literal translation." "Literal" just means that whatever we interpret or translate belongs to a literary work. Many people confuse "literal" with "literalistic", which would say that everything is written down exactly as it happened and does not take into account a contextual analysis of the text (which may be poetry or song or parable).

I do not know what you are attempting to distinguish between spiritual truth and literal truth, though. Truth is Truth.

I feel for you. I decided I no longer believed just as my younger daughter was being born. My timing was just slightly better, as I was somewhat out the door, but not publicly, at the time of her blessing. So, I was able to give a good blessing that was more of a general "your parents love you, make good decisions" then anything Mormon specific.

My wife also left eventually, but it was after some pretty rocky conversations and tense times in our marriage. I would wait for times when she would say something that I could use as an "in" to say something about church history she didn't know about. Joseph's polyandry, especially with teenage girls, is very powerful stuff with many women. So, if a report came out about a guy in the news that had sex with a teenage girl, my wife might say how that is gross, and I would reply "Joseph Smith did it multiple times" and leave it at that. It planted seeds. Later she would bring it up and ask for supporting details. Try and think of what responses she might give to those ("back then, men married younger women", etc.) and have calm counter-responses to those points. It will get the wheels turning. Eventually, like I said, my wife left and is now a more ardent/militant atheist than I am. I can proudly say my children will not be brainwashed by any religion.

I would also emphasize that you need to really concentrate on your love for her. Women are taught in Mormonism that their marriage is their key to exaltation. They cannot do it alone, they need a priesthood holder sealed to them. They can see this apostasy of yours as the end of their marriage in a very real way. Constantly ensure her of how much you love and cherish her, and how you need her in your life. That will help comfort her that you are in it with her and not to take off and be a sinner in the world.

Good luck. If you need "softer" info that your wife can read if she gets to the point that she is willing to look, there are resources people can recommend here. I would recommend these:

1. Why people leave the Mormon church. This video takes the approach that people leave for legitimate reasons. It isn't the best as far as conclusions, because in the end it tries to say that they should stay, but it can get her started in reasons from a non "anti" point of view.
   
   
2. 20 Truths About Mormonism. I LOVE this site and don't think it is referenced enough. Have her read it in order, because the intro is very important, as it sets the context that he is only seeking truth, and that is why he left.
   
   
3. Remembering the wives of Joseph Smith. This site is good in that many members don't think Joseph was a polygamist, or that much of the story are just anti lies that are spread. It has a wonderful table on the front page that shows his wives, their husbands at the time Joseph married them, and how old they are. The links are to a short biography of each, with reference links to the LDS church's own family search genealogy web site for source info.
   
   
4. Book: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. Great book. Also, this interview (4 PARTS) with the author is wonderful to listen to, maybe even before reading the book.
   
   Good luck!

> If God will exist, I am already living by it.

It sounds like your standards are based on just yourself (circular logic).

God is an infinitely intelligent being that knows the optimal thing to do at each moment. Do you think that you are living a perfect life in charity and virtue ? Are you helping as many people as you possibly could ? The truth is that all have fallen short of God's grace. We are all sinners. The best that we can do is be thankful and repentant.

Saint Vincent Ferrer was probably the most holy person to walk the earth since the Apostles and He lamented at how sinful he was. If you don't realize your own sinfulness in the sight of God, then you don't know about God.

> Having a plan and not telling me about it.

The word "plan" is misleading when referring to God. He is outside of time and knows the future, but we are locked in this timeline. From God's perspective, things have already happened AND they are currently happening...so it's not quite a "plan".

From our perspective, all we need to worry about is that we have free will, and whether or not we're making the most of it.

> Having a plan and not telling me about it.

Unless you are blind and quadriplegic, God has given you great abilities and a sense to make the most of them. You will be accountable for what you did or didn't do with them. Choose wisely.

You'll know if you are doing the right thing if you have a sense of joy. ...Like rescuing children from Human trafficking, or helping homeless people get back on their feet.

For reference, Mother Teresa would clean up people who were dying in the open sewers of Calcutta. Most people would avoid there because of the terrible smell, yet it brought her great joy. I would guess that you have more physical abilities than she did as a 100 pound little woman.

> Not all gay sex is adultery,

The Christian definition of adultery is not definable by each person (circular logic). All Gay sex is abhorrent in the eyes of God because He gave us the gift of procreation to have children. The Bible says this in several places, but it is also possible to reason out theologically. Since God is your creator, Gay sex is like master-bating in front of your parents, while they are begging for you to have grandchildren. Gay sex only serves one's own physical lusts. Gay sex can not produce a child, or serve someone in charity (Love). The physical effects like AIDS was God's way of warning people not to do it. God also gives mankind dominion over the physical world, which is the only reason why AIDS hasn't been more destructive.

> and strait martial sex can give you stds.

It's not just a matter of gay versus straight. Lots of straight people commit adultery. e.g. Porn stars. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

Christianity's standard is monogamous marriage and abstinence before marriage. If people had followed that, then millions of innocent people would not have died of AIDS and other STDs.

> homosexuality is not a choice. God made some people attracted to men, and his mad?

Human will is more complicated than that. By the time a child is 5, the child has had millions of impressions. I don't think that homosexuals are consciously deciding to be gay. It is more the product of malformation. For example, there are towns in Thailand where young boys are trained to be prostitutes for men. They are not "choosing".

I believe that God gives each of us the necessary graces to overcome our situations. There are tonnes of great testimonials of former homosexuals on www.couragerc.org.

> Not all parents are homophobes.

Not sure what you mean by that. If parents encourage homosexuality, they will have a very hard time facing God. Parents are supposed to teach their children to love God, not indulge in their physical lusts. For example, children also want to eat candy all day. Parents are supposed to teach responsible behavior.

God calls everyone to Heaven, but only the repentant can face Him, because He is Truth itself and shines like the sun. Those who can face the Truth are glorified by God's light. Those who have unrepentant sin are burned by His light. That's the basis of Heaven and Hell. They are both fueled by God's light.

> And if it's only bad if God is real, I call that blind faith.

Well, I was an atheist~agnostic for over 30 years and now understand that there is nothing blind about believing in Christianity. Quite the opposite. It is like openning one's eyes.

Ironically, believing in things like abiogenesis requires blind faith. There is ZERO proof of it, and it defies the laws of physics, like entropy.

I agree with Dr. Turek and his book title:

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

It sounds like you're already familiar with it, but just in case, the most plausible mythicist theory (in my opinion) of Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald is not simply that Jesus was made up from whole cloth at a later time or something, but that the original concept of Jesus was of him as a celestial deity, existing only in the heavenly realms. He was later "euhemerized" and placed into stories on earth (this was a common practice), and these later stories became cannonized into the gospels, and the earlier views of him as a celestial-only deity were lost.

The strongest case for this is in the early epistles, where many references to Jesus actually make more sense as a celestial Jesus than a Jesus-on-earth. One strong example:

> Hebrews 8:4 “For if he [Jesus] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”

> An astounding verse, and one that might well be considered the “smoking gun” proving that early Christians did not believe in a human, historical Jesus. Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 discuss the covenant of sacrifice between God and man. The writer is comparing the Jewish tabernacle, where the high priest makes blood sacrifices of animals to God within the heart of the sanctuary, with the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” (9:11) of Heaven, where Jesus offers his own blood within the heavenly sanctuary as a more perfect sacrifice to God. The underlying theme here is clearly a Platonic one: human actions on Earth mirror divine actions in Heaven, the imperfect material world reflecting the perfect divine world.

> As the writer of Hebrews crafts this analogy, he mentions, almost in passing, that if Jesus were on Earth, he would have had nothing to do, because there were already priests there offering sacrifices. Jesus’ role was only in Heaven, where he could offer his blood as a better sacrifice.

> But how could any writer who knew a human Jesus possibly have said this? How could he have overlooked the blindingly obvious fact that Jesus did have a purpose on Earth, that in fact he had to come here precisely to fulfill this purpose? Why does he seem to think that Jesus’ offering of his own blood took place exclusively in Heaven?

> From the gospel standpoint, this is impossible to explain. From the spiritual-Jesus standpoint, it is very easy, and indeed fits perfectly, like a lock in a key, with the scenario this essay puts forward.

God established his covenant with Abraham. The promise did not belong to Ishmael but to Isaac. But Ishmael would also become a great chieftain--the father of many nations. From Isaac, the promise passed Esau and went to Jacob, who, it should be noted, inherited Esau's blessing by deceit.

You see, God established one people. One nation. "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named".

Even the twelve tribes were one people under a single leadership.

Joshua was ordained to succeed Moses, when Moses commissioned him by the laying on of hands.

To the crowds and to his disciples, Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." There is one seat; one cathedra.

In the upper room before his Passion, when he was with the twelve, Jesus prayed, "Father...I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word...Sanctify them in the truth.

>I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.

After his resurrection, Jesus came among the twelve...

>On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This was something that Jesus gave to the twelve (at this point, the 11--yet Judas' "office" was vacant, and had to be filled).

But to one Jesus gave a special trust. To St. Peter, Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom, "and the gates of hell will never prevail against it". Whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There's a great deal of special significance to the location Jesus chose to ask his disciples--the twelve--this question; "Who do you say that I am?"

He brought them to a temple erected by Herod in honor of Caesar, who fashioned himself "The Son of God". It was a temple in the side of an enormous rock. In the rock and in the temple was a pit that was literally said to be "the gates of hell", into which live sacrifice was thrown. And in various clefts of the rock were statues--idols--to the Greek god of sheep and shepherds, Pan.

So here was a false temple to a false Son of God, built upon a rock with a gate to hell, and all overseen by a false shepherd.

And Peter confessed, "You are the anointed one, the Son of the Living God".

To which Jesus replied, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven."

>And I tell you, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The note in the RSV-Catholic Edition, says:

>Peter has the key to the gates of the city of God. This power is exercised through the church. “Binding” and “loosing” are rabbinic terms referring to excommunication, then later to forbidding or allowing something. Not only can Peter admit to the kingdom; he also has power to make authoritative decisions in matters of faith or morals.

There's a reference implicit in Jesus' proclamation to Isaiah 22.

>Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The steward being referred to in the House of David--the office he held--was that of the "prime minister" or vizier. Joseph had this role in the court of Pharaoh.

>So Pharaoh said to Joseph: ...you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.

This was the power given to Peter. The context is [necessarily] entirely Jewish. And the disciples would have understood it as such.

>The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed

And Peter said (in Acts 3):

>Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your posterity shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

The woman at the well, knowing her Torah, said to Jesus, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet."

>When the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

Jesus is the prophet like Moses. He is the new Moses. Moses had a seat. Christ has a seat. The scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses' seat. And they were told to do whatever they told them.

Who sits on Jesus' seat--or throne? Yes, Jesus' throne is in heaven, but Jesus is not just a prophet but a king as well. And a king in the line of David. And he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom", making Peter, Rocky, his prime minister. The prime ministry is an office, just as each of the twelve apostles held an office.

>In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry...For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

An office, like the office of President of the United States, is something which allows of successors. The successors inherit, or assume the powers inherent in the office. The personal qualities of the man don't really matter. The office itself confers the power.

And what is the power? The power to bind and loose.

Abraham was one. Moses was one. Christ is one.

The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

How can the Church be one if she isn't united in communion to the office of he to whom our LORD gave the keys of the kingdom--he who has the authority of the king?

I once felt like you. That the Catholic claims were uncharitable and divisive. But if we're not one, how can we say that we're of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

,,,

>The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

We are one if we are together in Christ. And we are together in Christ if we are in communion with the successor of Peter, who everyone acknowledges to be the Bishop of Rome.

And the gates of hell will never prevail.

The charism of Papal Infallibility is often misunderstood. All it means is that God will never permit the whole Church, in communion with the successor of Peter, to be led into error in matters of faith and morals.

That's all it means. Not that any Pope will be impeccable*. Or that any Pope will never make a mistake. Or that any Pope won't ever be a scoundrel or even a heretic. What matters is that the true successor of Peter will never commit the Church to any error in matters of faith and morals.

So we are one if we are united to the successor of Peter.

I'm almost out of space, so let me suggest some resources:

Former Pentecostal Pastor Alex Jones converted to the Catholic Church

Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray

The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

And finally, this was instrumental in my conversion to the Catholic Faith, so I can't recommend this enough:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

(Also here)

> I have no idea if this post contains anything insulting/against the rules/breaking some secret taboo. I just want to become closer to the family of the man I love.

This last sentence just made me smile so big today. We're a pretty thick skinned bunch, and hearing that you want to come into this with an open heart and mind, prompted by a man and family whom you love, is an occasion for joy. Welcome! We're happy to have you here. Please stick around and ask as many questions as you wish!

I want to make this offer at the beginning of this post, so it doesn't get buried. As you embark upon this journey, please feel free to keep my username handy and DM with any specific questions that trip you up or pique your curiosity. I mean that, I'm happy to be a resource in addition to all the wonderful folks who help this subreddit tick.

I'm a cradle Catholic, 28 years old, and I, too, feel like there's an eternity's worth of stuff to discover about the faith. It's always overwhelming.

I'm going to first echo /u/Trubea's sentiments, Catholicism For Dummies is an excellent resource book and worth picking up.

Given that your SO has been sharing lots of biblical stories with you it would also make sense to buy a Bible. I'd recommend the following for a very readable Bible with awesome footnotes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a teaching companion to reference against. It may take time to dig really deeply into those, but eventually you'll want them.

• Bible
  
• Catechism
  
  Two YouTube channels (finally I'm recommending something free, right?) where you'll find great short videos on what the Church teaches, pop culture, and everything in between are found here:
  
  
• Bishop Robert Barron's "Word On Fire" Channel
  
• Father Mike Schmitz on "Ascension Presents"
  
  Also, I've noticed you seem to be drawn to the "beauty" of the faith. The aforementioned Bishop Barron has some great media that I think you'd really enjoy.
  
  
• The Catholicism Video Series - A 10 episode documentary with some great cinematic work and soundtrack that break down some of the basics of the faith. A bit pricey for the whole thing, but something to consider. A trailer for the whole series can be found here and they did post a free, 53 min long episode on YouTube which can be found here.
  
  
• Bishop Barron's book that covers some of the same info as the video series, aptly named Catholicism.
  
  Before I recommend too many more options that break the bank, I'll leave you with that. :) There are lots of free resources to learn about the Catholic Church online, as well. The teachings, the stories, the lives of the saints, the miracles, you name it! Just let us know what is piquing your interest the most, and we'll do our best to direct you to something awesome on it.
  
  In the present, will say a prayer for your journey. Peace to you!
  
  

Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.

First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.

 Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052 - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life.  Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1

Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7R2EI - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.

 Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Einstein-Elves-Transcendence/dp/1890572179/ - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below

 Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Open-Head-Psychedelic-Contemporary/dp/0767907434 - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains

 Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642/ - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA

 Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Future-Religion-Robert-Forte/dp/1594774382 - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality

 Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Dark-Ancient-Sleepless/dp/0812997727 - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society

 Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Soul-Uncommon-Journey-Spirit/dp/0470619007 - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers

 Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book.  His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)

 Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-East-Idries-Shah/dp/178479063X/ - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars.  Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”

 Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - https://www.amazon.com/Key-True-Encounter-Whitley-Strieber/dp/1585428698 - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room.  Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid

 Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Physical-World-Mary-Scott/dp/0710094175/ - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)

 Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/siddhartha-hermann-hesse/1116718450? – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book.  Beautifully written, very enjoyable.

Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before

Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - https://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Evolution/dp/0812982444 - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam.  I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding

Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Power-Quiet-World-Noise-ebook/dp/B00MEIMCVG - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.

Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - https://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.”  Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”

Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671600419 - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way. 

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Mary-Magdalene-Jean-Yves-Leloup/dp/0892819111/ - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ.  This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Philip-Magdalene-Gnosis-Sacred/dp/1594770220 - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within.  This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.

Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Love-Now-Path-Heart/dp/0061961388 - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.

Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - https://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”

Hi there! Thanks for giving us a look!

The central "thing" about Catholicism is that we are the continuation of the Church that Christ founded on his Apostles/Peter. By looking at the history of Christianity, I think you'll find that statement is true (like I did).

I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never really looked into or practiced my faith that much. One day, I thought I'd have myself a go and try to disprove religion. Religion is just holding us back as a society right? So let me start at the top of the ladder. I tried to disprove theism in general.

Couldn't do it.

Ok, let me disprove Christianity then.

Couldn't do it.

Dang, can I at least prove that Catholicism isn't the true form of Christianity?

LOL, nope. I ended up having a much stronger connection to my faith. Presently, I am discerning the priesthood. I thank God every day that He allowed me to have such arrogance as to think "I can disprove God!" and travel down that rabbit hole. I came out with a profound love and trust for God. It was stressful and hair-pulling, but worth it!

I, for one, am a reader. Literature is what brought me back to the Church. There area many works which I would recommend:

• a small encyclical by Pope John Paul II called Fides et Ratio, or Faith and Reason in Latin. This very short book is about how faith and human reason are not opposed to each other! Faith and reason are two wings of the same dove on which man ascends to God. It's a very simple, yet important thing to read, and sets the stage for Catholic philosophy and theology.
  
  
• The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Jimmy converted to Catholicism after being a Baptist. This amazing book shows historical documents from the Early Church and shows how the Church Fathers, those who studied under the Apostles themselves, prove that Catholicism is the true form of Christianity.
  
  
• The Protestant's Dilemma is a fantastic read. It points to the inconsistencies in Protestantism and how such a religion cannot work. After I finished this book, I realized that every branch of Protestantism was false, and that the only true religion could be either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
  
  
• Jesus, Peter, and the Keys convinced me Catholicism was true and Orthodoxy was false because of its denial of the Papacy. I was hooked.
  
  
• In your situation, specifically with the attachment to Our Lady that you have, Behold Your Mother is a beautiful read. It's written by Tim Staples, another Catholic convert who converted his whole family to the Church. Tim explains why Catholics love Mary so much, and where all our fancy Mary doctrines come from. I think you would benefit greatly from this read!
  
  Finally, Catholic Answers has a YouTube channel. They have a 2 hour show every weekday in which they answer questions from Catholics and non-Catholics, and upload these questions as short videos. Any question you have should be answered here.
  
  There are many other books you could look into, but we don't want to scare you away! We have almost 2,000 years of material to read.

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!

> Should I recite prayers or make up my own or do a combination?

Combination. I'm currently reading Spe Salvi, and Pope Benedict explains it like this (paragraph 34):

> For prayer to develop this power of purification [to open us up to God], it must on the one hand be something very personal, an encounter between my intimate self and God, the living God. On the other hand it must be constantly guided and enlightened by the great prayers of the Church and of the saints, by liturgical prayer, in which the Lord teaches us again and again how to pray properly. [...] Praying must always involve this intermingling of public and personal prayer. This is how we can speak to God and how God speaks to us.

The "formulaic" prayers that we memorize are important, in part because they teach us how to pray. Most likely, you'll go through times in your life where you'll feel "dry", and you'll struggle to know what to say to God, struggle to feel his presence. Especially during these times - but during other times as well - these prayers are a real treasure. We can also pray together with the whole Church when we pray these prayers, because many of them are prayers that the whole Church has in common.

But you need to make up your own personal prayers, too. Ultimately, prayer is talking with God, and prayer is about building up a relationship with God. And just like in any relationship, you need to communicate your own personal (unique to you) hopes, fears, sorrows, longings. So you really do need both types of prayer.

> What are the most common or popular prayers for you guys (other than the prayers involved in the rosary, of course)?

There are so many out there. A morning offering is a good idea (that can be recited or in your own words). There's the Angelus, which is often prayed at noon each day (and sometimes at 6 am and 6 pm as well). It's also good to get in the habit of doing a brief examination of conscience before bed, followed by an Act of Contrition (again, either recited or in your own words).

> How do I achieve meditative prayer?

The rosary is a meditative prayer, so there's that. Personally, I really struggle with the rosary (I tend to get overwhelmed by trying to do so many things all at once: counting with the beads, praying aloud, meditating on the mysteries), but you can also do meditative prayer in other ways: the Divine Mercy Chaplet and Lectio Divina are both meditative prayers, and prayer before icons or before the crucifix can also be meditative.

The Catechism has a good section on expressions of prayer which discusses meditative and contemplative prayer.

> How can I study the bible correctly and be able to recall passages as some of you do in the comments?

I can't speak to recollection (I think some of that just comes with time), but a couple of suggestions for Bible study: Probably the easiest way to start is to find a Bible Study at a local parish. It's also a good practice to read from the Bible regularly, ideally with the help of a good study Bible. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is good, but it's New Testament only. Other resources might be a Navarre Bible or the Didache Bible (also from Ignatius press).

> And finally, how does one properly do the process of Lectio Divina by oneself?

For Lectio Divina, check out this explanation.

Oooo this is my wheelhouse!

First, I would recommend looking at the Mormon History Association Best Book awards going back to 1966. Quality scholarship, research, and writing are a mainstay with them.

Required reading:

Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet by John Turner / Brigham Young: American Moses by Leonard Arrington

Considered two of the best books about early Utah and the Brigham Young years. Arrington's book was considered groundbreaking when he wrote it, and Turner's book brings in the valuable perspective of the non-Mormon writing about Young. For many Mormons, Turner's book will be less sympathetic to Young than Arrington's, but Turner also worked closely with the Church Archives (and spoke glowingly about them and that process), so his research had access to some better sources. If you need a primer for Brigham Young, I recommend Arrington's book. For a Brigham Young graduate level course, I recommend Turner.

Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview by Michael Quinn

To understand much of what happened in early Mormonism, you must understand the role that folk magic played in the lives of Americans in the 1800s. Quinn's research at this time was top notch, and he was a quickly rising star among Mormon historians. Considered one of his best works, and foundational to the understanding things like seer stones, divining rods, visions, and everything else that happened in the early church days.

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince

Covers late 1940s - 1960s Mormonism, one of the "rising moments" of Mormonism when we went from a Utah-church to a worldwide church. Prince had amazing access to the journals of President McKay's secretary, which led to some candid discussions about things like the publishing of Mormon Doctrine by McConkie, blacks and the priesthood, ecumenical outreach, and politics.

Spencer W. Kimball by Edward Kimball / Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward Kimball

Ed was Pres. Kimball's son, and the books cover both the apostle years and presidency years of Spencer W. Kimball. If you had to choose one, get Lengthen Your Stride, but make sure it has the CD that comes with the book. This has the unabridged manuscript prior to the Deseret Book edits, which is much more interesting.

By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl Givens (heck...anything by Terryl Givens!)

I'll admit - I'm a Terryl Givens fanboy. By the Hand of Mormon was the one that first got me in to him, mostly because he took the Book of Mormon as a serious work of literature to examine it's merits. It's not as devotional as many traditional LDS books about the Book of Mormon (it was put out by Oxford University Press), but it really gave me a deeper appreciation for the Book of Mormon as contemporary literature. Also check out Viper on the Hearth (Mormons on myth and heresy), People of Paradox (Mormon culture), When Souls had Wings (the pre-existence in Western thought), and so many others.

And just because I'm a big book nerd, here's the list of books that are on my desk right now that I can give you quick reviews if you want:

• Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History by Greg Prince
  
• The Mormon Jesus: A Biography by John Turner
  
• Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings, edited by Brooks, Steenblik and Wheelwright
  
• Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness by W. Paul Reeve
  
• Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority and Equal Rights by Martha Sonntag Bradley
  
• A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History, edited by Laura Harris Hales
  
• Glorious in Persecution: Joseph Smith, American Prophet 1839-1844 by Martha Bradley Evans
  
• The Mormon Church & Blacks: A Documentary History, edited by Harris & Bringhurst
  
• From the Outside Looking In: Essays on Mormon History, Theology and Culture, edited by Neilson & Grow
  
• Out of Obscurity: Mormonism since 1945, edited by Mason & Turner
  
• Mormonism & American Politics, edited by Balmer & Riess
  
• Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics by Campbell, Green & Monson
  
• A Book of Mormons: Latter-day Saints on a Modern-Day Zion, edited by Jensen & McKay-Lamb
  
• Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine & Covenants by the LDS Church
  
• Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805-1830 by Richard S. Van Wagoner
  
• Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths by Ann Taves (looking at Mormonism, Alcoholics Anonymous and A Course in Miracles)
  
• A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women's Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870 by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
  
• Baring Witness: 36 Mormon Women Talk Candidly about Love, Sex, and Marriage edited by Holly Welker

There’s a lot of good responses here already but I wanted to offer some resources and ideas that have helped me.
First of all, despite what the new atheists say, you don’t need faith to believe in God, which is why there are so many deists in academia. The weight of the scientific evidence alone is enough to conclude that there must be some kind of intelligence behind reality. This includes the fine-tuning argument, a variation of which convinced Antony Flew, a life long atheist academic and strong critic of religion to change his mind about God and embrace deism, and quantum mechanics, which doesn’t prove God’s existence but rather undermines materialist assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality. These findings have convinced others in the scientific community such as lifelong atheist, Richard Conn Henry, a professor of theoretical physics at MIT to embrace deism.
So just based on what’s happening with physics, it’s reasonable to believe that there’s some kind of intelligence behind reality. However, this in no way proves the existence of the God of the Bible.
To support the Christian view of God you can look at the evidence for the reliability of New Testament accounts. This is where faith comes in. You have to decide whether or not you believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Obviously, there isn’t a scientific way to definitively prove whether or not an historical event happened. But if you want support for the idea that miracles happen and are relatively common, even today, I’d recommend Craig S Keeners magisterial 2 volume work “Miracles” which details hundreds of modern day miracle accounts.

Other reading:
The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard who was a professor of philosophy for many years at USC, helped me to understand my faith at a deeper level, which has helped immensely. It turns out it’s much easier to believe in something when it actually makes sense to you.

On Guard by William Lane Craig explains many of the logical proofs that other commenters have offered here, which are great but can be really difficult to understand without spending a good amount of time with them.

Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart: Hart is a leading Orthodox theologian and philosopher who spends a lot of time talking about the logical incoherence of materialism. All his stuff is great but it’s difficult.

This is just a small sample of what’s out there in terms of apologetics but it’s a start. There’s enough that you could spend your entire life reading compelling arguments for the God’s existence. However, the most effective way to strengthen your faith, in my opinion, is to see how effective the teachings of Jesus are for yourself, to ACTUALLY DO what he says and see how it transforms your life first hand. This is how you make your faith unshakable. Nothing beats personal experience.

I actually deconverted from Catholicism in college. I'm a revert.

I never got into into the party culture. I'm really against drinking and doing drugs, and I've always been skeptical of sex outside of a committed relationship and those morals stuck with me even after I deconverted from Christianity. What I did encounter was a lot of intellectual arguments against religion that I couldn't answer. However, what I also eventually discovered was that most of those objections had been heard before and responded to, at least in some manner.

So, here's my semi-comprehensive list of apologetics apologetics resources that I've accumulated over the years.

IMHO, the following books cover all the essentials very well and are probably must reads. You can buy used or online copies of them relatively cheaply, under 20 dollars if you're in the US. Check out Trent Horn's Answering Atheism, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civ, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (you can probably get Mere Christianity at your at public library), and What is Marriage? Man and Woman a Defense for defending the concept of natural marriage. You should also read How to Argue which is a free pdf. I haven't researched abortion apologetics as extensively as other areas but I know Trent Horn has some books on those.

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

I'm not going to say you should read all of my remaining recommendations but I'm putting the rest out there for you so you know they exist.

Now, no list of apologtics is going to cover every argument about Christianity so I would also recommend some online resources. www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism is an amazing forum. It has tons of Catholics who are way more knowledgable and experienced that me who can answer questions and stuff. You may or may not have heard of it ;). I also recommend William Lane Craig's site: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer. Again, Craig is a protestant so don't look to him for a defense of Catholicism. However, he's good when it comes to defending the basics of Christianity from atheism. Catholic Answers is good. Fr Barron is good. Strange Notions can be good, I link to it in my last paragraph.

The exact relationship between faith and reason was my biggest stumbling block on the road back to Catholicism, so I have some good recommendations on that topic. I recommend the papal encycle Fides et Ratio and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civ. Plantinga's book Where the Conflict Really Lies is also popular and uses evolution to make an interesting argument against materialism. Plantinga's not a Catholic so I don't know how well they would square with Catholic philosophies like Thomism, but, yeah, he exists. He also wrote this giant essay on faith and science, which was helpful. The book God and the Philosophers is pretty good too, it's an anthology of different Christian philosophers and talks about how they converted to Christianity.

Some comprehensive (but expensive) books by non-Catholics include The Blackwell Companion to natural theology by William Lane Craig (not a Catholic). I've heard good things about Richard Swinburne's apologetics trilogy The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason. Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox, just for the record.

I want to give a special shoutout to Edward Fesser. He's a secular atheist philosopher who converted to Catholicism. You can read his conversion story here. He also has a blog that you can google. Fesser also wrote a bunch of books that are highly recommended by people on this sub, although I haven't read them.

So I'm going to be honest and straightforward with you because I think you can handle it and you sound exactly like me.
_
Ever since I saw my first video online I was instantly drawn to pornography. I realized quickly though that what I found interesting in my porn was not the same that most of my friends enjoyed. I came to the realization that many of my friends used porn as a pure sexual release and for them they didn't mind the fake and overproduced videos. The women on screen were merely a collection of body parts.

However, when I looked for porn I invariably enjoyed the types that at least attempted to portray that they were enjoying it. That it wasn't some bang fest but that it was two people that genuinely wanted to be filming together. However, even this started to feel lackluster and I didn't enjoy it. Through out this time though, these videos failed to capture my attention for more than a couple minutes at a time.

However, I found that when I got the chance I loved sitting and watching cam girls. These girls that are fully clothed and just talk and do normal things like play online games and chat the users in their forums. I found this enchanting. I began to realize I didn't like porn because it met a sexual need but I enjoyed porn because it met an emotional need.

The reason I liked cam girls and things that had a more intimate feeling was because it felt like they were really my girlfriend. It felt like they trusted me and wanted me to experience life with them. It was a way for me to feel like I wasn't alone.

This is just a dangerous of a decision as watching porn (if not more) because you are emotionally crippling yourself to be involved with a woman that does actually love you and does actually want to share intimately with you. You are hurting your future wife and future marriage.

Moving forward.

>Many of the motivations for quitting pornography don't even come close to applying to me. I can't count the number of posts I've read on /r/NoFap, and sometimes here, telling us we shouldn't watch P because it's an inaccurate representation of sexual relations, because of the horrible conditions the actresses operate under, because...

>I don't care. I didn't watch that stuff. Chalk it up to very specific tastes, if you like, but that had nothing to do with the crap that I viewed.

Newsflash! You have wrongly convinced yourself of this and have been lying to yourself for a long time. These are excuses to disregard bad behavior. I convinced myself of this too. There is not financial slavery or physical slavery happening here but that is far from something being enslaving. You and I are still taking advantage of these women! Don't delude yourself. You are stealing something from them that you have no right to. You don't get to chalk it up to being voluntary. These are human women who are hurting. (All people are wounded and are hurting. Some more than others.) They have a burning desire for validation as beautiful women just as you have a burning desire for validation as man. They are turning to the internet to provide them with some sort of happiness but the truth is those comment sections will ultimately only hurt them more than help them. They are as emotionally dependent of fleeting words of affirmation as you are on their false validation of your masculinity.
____

The problem I see in your rationale is that you have decided that since your sin doesn't stink as bad as the next guy that you're for some reason ok. I believed this for a long time. The fact is sin is sin. Even if that girl was as emotionally stable as could be, you are still damaging yourself, damaging your wife, and damaging your relationship with God. You are turning to that girl to prove that you are a man. You are taking to her a wound that only God can heal. All she is going to do is scratch at it and keep it festering. It will grow worse and worse until you can no longer tell where the wound starts and you start.

WE MUST TURN TO GOD FOR OUR VALIDATION!

Only can Christ's act of Grace on the cross ever heal our wound. No matter how much money we have, how big our house is, or how many wives we have it will all fall short in trying to fulfill our sense of validation. Ecclesiastes 1:2 pretty much sums it up perfect. "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." That is pretty much the truth. Anything you find on this earth will never compare to the true love and validation you will find in the Lord.
____
Read below if nothing else.

My advice to you is to first truly dwell on your own wound as a man. A great book to read is Wild at Heart which discusses what a man's heart truly longs for. That is what you are describing here. You aren't longing for sex you're longing for validation. Figure out what it means to be a godly man! Read about Paul's life, read about Moses, read about David or Solomon. There are some incredible men in the Bible. None of them get it right all the time. Most of them screw up in huge ways but the life changing point is that these men do not turn to the world for their validation, they turn to God. When you finally find your masculinity through the Lord then an amazing woman will come your way, who knows she may be hiding right under your nose.

Prayers, lean on the Lord!

Anyone worth their mettle in religion understands the Bible has been largely exaggerated, and people who take the bible absolutely LITERALLY are the Fake-Catholics/Christians I am talking about.

We know the Bible was pretty much curated during the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D - where due to the impending collapse of the roman empire, Italy HAD TO be converted into Catholicism, or face absolute fucking Anarchy.

So any/all accounts of God/Jesus were erased, and now we have the Divine, hence why from 12-25 years of Jesus's life are missing, and when/why all religious holidays are decided, how to pray, etc.

Also, the Church was incredibly corrupt back in the day, controlling most of the World's currency, and Fate of entire countries.

The Modern Catholic, very much differs with the whole "concept" of religion most people seem to think - when I tell them "I'm religous", we pray and do everything else, but the modern church has changed drastically, to the point that we do believe in Aliens, Accept gays into church, and Pope Francis literally appoints special council hunting pedophiles - we believe in science too, Great Men of science like Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo (who literally defied the church), Georges Lemaitre (who worked with Einstein on his relativity equation - was a priest), and Many NASA Austronauts are devout catholics.

None of them, however, claimed that - literally - God spoke to them (as these bozos claim - like a full convo), No - when "God speaks to you" literaly means you were inspired by God from someone, through something - painters call this a "Muse" in Faith, we say "God Spoke" or "God has Spoken" - as in it's God's will.

When speaking about religion, try not to look at it from the literal point of view, when God speaks, he speaks through someone, your mom, dad, whoever - you hear the right thing, and you act.

Again, when someone literally says "God Spoke to me" and they had a "Conversation about what to do" - that's when the greatest crimes in history have been commited, not because he actually TOLD YOU and you REPLIED, but because you wanted to say he Spoke to you and YOU ONLY, and people will always have an Agenda, when speaking like that, hence their plane BS.

To your last point, we do have actual historical evidence as to when Catholicism came about - Reza Azlan, has a PH.D in religion and has actually written about this - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X

Regardless of your beliefs, Jesus did indeed exist, and was a very prominent figure well known for prominent figure performing actual Miracles, like healing Lepers, and resurecting Lazarus (historical evidence of this is true) , and he founded his own Church through one of his Disciples - Peter (who became the first Pope Ever) around 30 AD - this is a historical fact.

We know too - Jesus was so prominent, he shows in other religious sacred texts, like Jewish, and the Quran, which his name is mentioned more times than Mohammed.

Awesome!!!

>As I am very new to the faith, I was wondering if I could receive some advice/answers from people here. What would the best writing be to look at for talks through various denominations. Do I need a specific denomination? What other Christian works would be good to read in order to gain a better understanding of the relationship with God and general Christian concepts (I have already ordered a collection of C. S. Lewis’s works as a start).

Well, I would of course want you to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Some great resources, in general, include Bishop Barron (anything by him, he's fantastic), Peter Kreeft's works, and Scott Hahn's works. C.S. Lewis, who was highly influenced by Tolkien and Chesterton, both Catholic, is a fantastic starting point. [This] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Be-Catholic-Important-Question/dp/0307986438) book, [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591) book, and [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Complete-Updated/dp/0385479670) Catechism aregreat reading resources. I'd recommend getting a kindle if you don't have one so you can do what I did and just pour through tons of books. If you have a past with Orthodoxy, check out the Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches. [This] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/057803834X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493667291&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=origins+of+catholic+christianity&dpPl=1&dpID=41bsQ2nPSxL&ref=plSrch) book, as well as the other two parts of it, are very interesting as well, and include part I, the Crucified Rabbi, part II, the Catholic Paul, and part III, the Eternal City. Sorry for the boatload of information; Bishop Barron, overall, is the best place to start. You can find him on YouTube.

I'd also recommend that you go on the sidebar to each and every denominational subreddit and ask them why they think they are the True Church. The one thing I can't recommend enough is to not make a grocery list of doctrines you like and then pick the denomination that suits you best. That isn't how Christianity works; there is one Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, one Body of Christ, and one Church-- the next step for you is figuring out which one it is. You'd probably want to start with Catholicism or Orthodoxy, the two Churches that can directly trace their roots back to the Apostles, yet sadly one split from the other in 1054.

If you haven't yet, get a good, solid Bible (preferably one with the original canon, not the Lutheran one) and start reading the Gospels prayerfully, as well as the Epistles. For the epistles especially, keep in mind the audience of the letter and the context. For the New Testament, the Ignatius Study Bible is incredible; however, the Old Testament has yet to come out. You can get a bundle deal on Amazon with the Catechism and a Study Bible.

God bless, and we'll keep praying for you on your journey!

Awesome, it's great you're so proud of her!

Haha knowledge that leads to everlasting boredom! Book studies were the worst, I always felt super obligated to study extra hard because there were so few people that often nobody would answer!

Don't be so sure that your family will keep abandoning you, it's possible sure, but there's always hope! Often they're surprised that you can leave the witnesses and live a normal, or even better than normal life (of course there's always the "blessed by satan" get out clause) but they do expect people who leave to get aids and die from a heroin overdose.

It's easy to prove them wrong! Either way though, you have your own family to look out for and you can learn what not to do!

On to the suggested reading. I've mentioned many on here before but I don't expect everyone to be aware of it all so here goes:

Reading (I have a kindle and love reading, but they're all available for ebook and in paperback)

• Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time and The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths these books really really helped me comprehend how I allowed myself to be fooled and that I can learn from my mistakes
  
• Richard Dawkins - The greatest show on earth and Coyne's Why evolution is true concreted the fact that the earth wasn't made and that animals didn't magically appear
  
• Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World - it is a bit similar to shermers books, but a great read nonetheless, Sagan has an amazing awe at the universe and it's beautiful to read!
  
• Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything This book is by far among my favorites but it has a more aggressive tone, which is why I wouldn't start with it. Hitchens was awesome, even though I didn't agree with everything he said.
  
  Web
  
  
• JWFacts, of course...an invaluable site but it WILL make you mad
  
• Bad astronomy - add it to your RSS reader, often breathtaking, and generally about space
  
• Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True blog - science and politics
  
  
  Pocasts
  
  (all on iTunes etc, i like them because I can listen at work or download to my phone)
  
  
• The skeptic's guide to the universe it's intelligent, they discuss science and science news and skepticism and I always learn something
  
• Dogma debate just great, lots of debates with christians of various kinds and you can hear how both sides present their arguments
  
• Rationally speaking you said philosophy is of interest, if so this is a must!!!
  
• Cognitive dissonance - they are angry they talk news and politics and religion, it's very funny, informative and irreverent
  
• Caustic soda just a generally awesome science / history / factual podcast
  
  
  That's about it for now, if you soak all that in / want more / have suggestions let me know, and I'd love to hear what you think! :)
  
  

Things you can do at home: I'd recommend getting a prayer book (I started with this one: https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Prayer-Orthodox-Christians-paper/dp/B000FFYC72/) and start reading the morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. They won't take long and, practiced consistently, they will begin to incline your heart towards God. They did mine.

Regarding the Jesus Prayer: God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of love and of a sound mind. You need not be afraid of invoking the name of Jesus "wrongly" as long as you are doing it out of love and a sound mind. Say it reverently and with great love.

"Beginning to Pray" by Met. Anthony Bloom is a wonderful read if you are trying to understand prayer better: https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Pray-Anthony-Bloom/dp/0809115093/ It has the added virtue of being short.

And to echo what others have said, find a way that you can stand in the Church and apprehend this with more than just your noggin'. Seriously. Even if that means you can only get out once or twice a month. That's where my family is at right now, at least through the end of the year. Orthodoxy is such a wonderful thing to experience, but it's also so rich that for inquirers like you and me, even once or twice a month may be enough beauty to feed on until our situations improve.

A quick comment before I start lobbing people for you to read. Most people stop learning about the faith at around 6 or 7 years old and so it's no wonder that once you read someone who can form a coherent argument against what you barely understand, your opinion is easily swayed.

So I'm going to give you some suggestions of people to read. Take them or leave them, but the Catholic intellectual tradition is amazing, so please at least consider some of these authors.

Chesterton, Chesterton, Chesterton. GK Chesterton's Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man are all great reads and they're all online in text and audio for free. Chesterton debated all the greats of his age: HG Wells, Kipling, Bernard Shaw, and did so with courtesy and a great love of paradox.

CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is also a classic and keep in mind that Lewis was strongly influenced by his friend, you guessed it... GK Chesterton.

There's always Aquinas, who was so brilliant that he was even recognized by Monty Python (the philosopher's soccer match sketch). Seriously though, New Advent has his Summa (along with about a million other Catholic documents and texts) available for free. Aquinas gets pretty deep, and the Summa is really long, so you may want to start with a primer.

Moving into our own times, there's Peter Kreeft, who is one of my favorite philosophers.

Jennifer Fulweiler is an atheist convert, who writes a blog and does a lot of radio appearances.

If you love the science, check out The Catholic Laboratory; it's a podcast about the intersection of faith and science and how the two are really complimentary. After all, God created the laws of physics and rules the universe through them. Fr. Robert Spitzer is a priest and scientist, who has done some significant research on new proofs of God's existence using things like quantum physics.

Anyway, there's some stuff to get you started if you're interested in reading a bit to counter Hitchens and Dawkins. FWIW, I am a fan of Hitchens' writing, even if I disagree with him; Dawkins on the other hand I consider a no-talent hack, who should stick to science and leave philosophy and theology to other people. Reading Dawkins' take on Aquinas is like reading a young earth creationist writing about evolution. But I digress.

As far as the Church sex scandal, it's a tragic affair. However, you should really read the John Jay report on the scandal; this is an independently written report from the John Jay College that really nails down the causes of the sex abuse scandal (spoiler alert: celibacy had nothing to do with it). Also, if you read the statistics of abuse between Catholic clergy and other institutions (public schools, Boy Scouts, other religious institutions), you'll see that only 4% of priests between 1950 and 2002 were ever even accused and that the average abuse rate in other populations is around 10%. As for the cover up, at the time, the Church was doing what modern psychology said to do because the recidivism rate wasn't really understood (remember that the vast majority of these cases happened between 1950 and 1970). This website has some statistics on all of this and while it is published by the Church, all of the statements are cross referenced to non-church sources.

Anyway, I'll stop with the wall of text and even if you don't read anything I've suggested, I'm glad that your opinion of Catholics has improved. :)

> What are the sacraments? Where can I find them in scripture?

Catholicism isn't a sola scriptura religion (and, really, sola scriptura wasn't meant to eliminate other sources of knowledge such as Tradition, but that's how it's ended up for a lot of denominations). Sometimes, there are things that logic and reasoning bring you to.

That said, Baptism, Reconciliation (Confession), and the Eucharist are extremely clear from scripture [Matt 28:19] [John 20:22-23] [Luke 22:19].

Someone else already discussed confirmation but I'll add this: [ccc 1286-1289].

Jesus teaches about marriage very definitively to the point of referencing Genesis and the insoluble union of becoming one flesh. He also performed His first public miracle at a wedding. (Interesting side note: the sacrament of marriage is conferred upon one another by the bridge and groom. The Church merely witnesses.)

I'm going to refer you to the Catechism for Holy Orders since I don't have the skill to summarize it for you. Although that implies I'm doing a good job summarizing the others, which probably isn't the case.

Jesus publicly healed the sick, sometimes using sacramentals to anoint them even though He clearly didn't need to [John 9:6-7]. And Jesus' ministry was certainly a healing ministry for both body and soul.

> Do Catholics worship Mary?

No. We honor Mary as the mother of God. I think the biggest thing that causes so much confusion for many Christians is that they equate prayer with worship. To pray is to ask, as in "pray tell". So we ask Mary to intercede on our behalf with her Son, just as she did for the bride and groom at Cana [John 2:1-5].

>So do you pray to Saints? How do we know they are in heaven now? I always thought everyone was at rest waiting for judgement day.

The modern process for declaring that someone is in heaven requires authenticated miracles that could only be attributed to the intercession of someone who is dead (there's more to it than just that, but that's the logical basis for the declaration). There are most assuredly some that have been declared saints in the past that were done so more for political reasons than theological, so I don't really know what their exact standing would be. The Church has been given no knowledge about who isn't in heaven - only those that are. [Luke 23:43] [Mark 9:2-4]

> I'd always thought that meant making images of angels or the trinity was forbidden but correct me if I am wrong.

And yet, [Exodus 25:18-20].

> -Not that is particularly matter to me personally, but I am curious as to whether Catholics believe the images to be aesthetically accurate.

I don't actually know if there's an official Church teaching on that particular item, but I'm personally fairly certain the Jesus wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. Obviously I could be wrong. There are definitely people in the Middle East that vary a lot in complexion, hair color, and eye color. I suppose the various representations of Jesus are more about helping you to identify with Him on a more personal level; hence Him looking more like people in the region that the images were made: white Jesus in Europe, black Jesus in Africa, semetic Jesus in the Middle East. I haven't actually seen an Asian Jesus, but I'm sure He's out there.


---

Wow! A lot of great questions. I think you would benefit greatly by purchasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church - CCC for short. It's also available online. I would tell you to follow the links in the part that Catebot will provide from the bot callout I did, but those links aren't working correctly anymore and I haven't made it a priority to fix them. :(

I also checked your posting history and while I don't have experience with the turmoil you're going through, feel free to PM me if you just need to talk. I did go through a similar search as you are including Judaism and very seriously considered converting prior to returning to Catholicism (raised Catholic, never confirmed, drifted away but never completely stopped believing, various Christian denominations, mysticism, etc.). I will pray that your search for the Truth is fruitful: [Phil 1:4-6].

edit: Huh. My instance of versebot scanned my post but chose not to quote any verses. Weird. I'm going to put them all together in a separate comment and call out the official bot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sites

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

Man, I'm really sorry to hear you feel like your faith is slipping. I have some resources that I think can really help you, but please first and foremost pray that God would strengthen your faith. Rely on your heavenly father in Christ, and ask Him to increase your faith.

If you'd like to have a conversation via discord I'd be happy to speak with you about this. You are not alone in this struggle, and I've been through some of this fairly recently.

Ultimately as Christians we believe that a man named Jesus lived, claimed to be God, and proved it by predicting and accomplishing His resurrection from the dead.
If this is true, then He is God and what He says is true - especially that He is the way to be reconciled to God.

I recommend checking out Frank Turek. Without using the bible, He covers the breadth of topics that you are concerned about, from the reasons to believe in God down to why the Christian God. If you enjoy reading, his book is a wonderful, thought provoking read. if you prefer video, I recommend watching his presentation at East TN Univerity

Feel free to skip over my essay, and down to my recommendations. The essay is intended to add some context for someone trying to understand mormonism from the outside.

The mainstream branch of mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is starting to diverge significantly from its historical roots. The folk magic/occult practices found at the church's origin are now considered completely foreign and abhorrent. The same for the practice of polygamy, it is disavowed and a distant memory within the mainstream church. The membership hardly remembers how central of tenet plural marriage once was. It isn't a relevant part of the religion anymore.

The original church is being watered down and the rough spots sanded over and evened out. The temple rituals originally included some very disconcerting elements and language. They have been significantly revised over time. First, they modified their nude bathing initiation to be a semi-nude washing off with a small hose. Now, as I understand it, all washing is omitted. Initiates are allowed to wear undergarments and not be naked under a sheet. Now, the officiant doesn't touch the initiate at all, if I understand correctly. Also, the death oaths for revealing the secrets of the temple are gone, as is the oath of vengeance against the United States of America for not preventing the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

The personal priesthood interviews to determine worthiness are another thing that is being changed and toned down within mainstream mormonism. The change is being driven by new order mormons, NOMs, who are putting their ward bishop on notice that they won't tolerate the bishop asking invasive questions of their children. I don't think that would've have gone over very well when I was a youth in the church. My parents would have been excommunicated for trying to dictate terms to the bishop. Still, today, I assume that some bishops would not accept terms presented by the NOMs.

I believe studying the church's origins helps to show that the church is not the one-true church that many of us have been taught that it was from birth. Studying the early history shows their practices were even more cultish than today. That said, outsiders would still consider their current secretive, masonic-based temple rituals plenty cultish, though.

Outsiders need to be able to separate its history from its current practice. Except for the temple, the LDS church's Sunday and weekly worship services are standard fare, albeit with a significant time commitment each week. Most of their services are about propping up their mythology, with some socialization- getting to know one another thrown in. They don't delve too deeply into any troubling elements of scripture, or of church history or former practices. The lessons are standardized by committee. Certain topics are definitely too hot to handle. If I were to say one thing about it, I think church is now more about being one of the ways that is used to present their family into the community, especially in highly mormon communities. It's a way to primp and preen, and try to impress the neighbors. Parents thoroughly wash, dress, and parade their families before the other members of the ward. The goal is to appear to be the perfect mormon family. To add the final piece to the puzzle, the family must fall into line and prove they are worthy of respect, that means regular participation in temple rituals. To be eligible to attend the temple, the member must affirm they agree with and try to follow the current theology of the church 100%, but mostly that boils down to agreeing to pay 10% of their income to the church. At this point, I think the temple rituals are a lot like Tevia said in Fiddler on the Roof in the lead in to Tradition! They don't know why they do those rituals, but it was good enough for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, so it must be good for something. The faithful would say it is a requirement to seal a legal agreement with god; it is buying an insurance policy that says families are forever.

I'll stop here, except for stating that a new dynamic is emerging in the church. People are quitting, either by simply not attending (going inactive), or by formally resigning. Issues like the church's support for prop 8 begin to call into question whether the church is on the right side of history. They see the tremendous cash outlay required to build their mall and wonder whether the church is making the right kind of financial choices for a so-called charitable organization. As noted above, these issues can lead a member to begin to question whether their church is everything it claims to be. Is it the one true church? That question runs headlong into the buzzsaw of early mormon history. The information is available online that shows that it is not what it claims to be. Of course, this type of research can lead to loss of faith. What happens when only one partner in a marriage learns the truth? How should young adults respond to their parents' expectations for them knowing that missionary work for something they don't believe in is not something they are wiling to do? How should young women attempt to break out of the rigid sex roles and limited life plan offered by mormonism? I discovered these existential, heartbreaking, and painful experiences detailed here on this subreddit. The politics of how to deal with that fallout when the blinders come off and people face a new reality is what the subreddit is mostly about. It provides a new community for those who are looking for a new worldview, free from the clear cut and rigid worldview presented from childhood as the truth.

Recommendations

• Brodie's No Man Knows My History
  
  
• Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which you've read.
  
  
• Bhattacharya's Secrets and Wives
  
  
• Church Administrative Handbook, Instruction for stake presidents and bishops. (In two volumes: one is publicly available; the other is available if you look hard.)
  
  Next on my reading list:
  
  
• D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
  
  I am about halfway through with Jessop's Escape, which you've read.
  
  Other media:
  
  
• Mormon Expression Podcast # 200: top ten changes to the temple
  
  
• Mormon Expression Podcast # 176: top reasons to leave mormonism
  
  
• Mormon Expression Podcast # 175: top reasons to stay in mormonism
  
  
• Mormon Expression Podcast # 192: Community of Christ, the most liberal branch of mormonism, by far.
  
  Other subreddits you might like to take a look at...
  
  
• exit stories
  
  
• bestof exmormon
  
  

I am also a Christian with mostly Baptist family who is considering entering the Catholic Church. I'll second (or third or fourth) Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. I also enjoyed his Hail, Holy Queen. It really helped me to understand the Church's view of Mary. Just watch out for the puns. Hahn loves him some terrible puns.

I can tell you that reading the early Church Fathers was what really moved me away from Protestantism. I saw that the Church of the first millennium looked a lot more Catholic than I ever imagined. New Advent has an index of them here. New Advent is also the home of the online Catholic Encyclopedia. Lots of really good stuff there, although it is almost 100 years old.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and recommend the catholic.com Catholic Answers forum. I wouldn't visit unless you really enjoy debate and don't get frustrated easily, but I have had more questions answered by reading some of the debates there between Catholics and Protestants than almost anywhere else. Just be aware that it's a large forum and quality varies. I know there are people here who don't like Catholic Answers at all because of how rowdy it can get, but it has been a huge help to me.

Visit Word on Fire. Father Barron is awesome, and WOF's videos are really informative. If you have the chance, check out their Catholicism series. EWTN runs them occasionally. It's a really great show.

Good luck with your journey. It's a big transition, but it's so beautiful.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I have a copy of the catechism. I have this one. It's pretty dense in spots, but I have found it a HUGE help. I would also recommend a Catholic study Bible. I am actually using an Orthodox study Bible at the moment, and it's great to have the deuterocanonical books included.

I believe that what makes our life meaningful is the meaning we give it. If for you that means committing to religion, then it is good for you to do that. I've personally met a bunch of people who said they felt like you did before joining the Church and that it really turned their life around.

>Just looking for reassurance that believing in God could be a plausible belief system.

I've only studied Christianity, but I would say that it definitely is plausible. There is a long tradition of very intelligent people who have thought a lot about the issues of God and religion, and whatever the New Atheists may say the answers these people have come up with can't be dismissed lightly. I would recommend this book, and especially any of the popular work of Swinburne or Plantinga (note: haven't read this one, but heard good things about it and Plantinga knows his stuff), as an introduction to the academic study and defence of theism.

>The possibility of God is all I've got, if I want to defeat my suicidal thoughts and embrace life fully.

Go for it, and I wish you the best of luck (though I also second others' recommendations of seeking counselling, it was a great help to me when I needed it).

Selfishly I will hope that at some point you might come to see the meaning I see in an atheistic world and be in a better space to consider the merits of atheism, but it sounds like that isn't what is important right now.

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.

Thank you for submitting to /r/SmallYTChannel. You have spent 3λ to submit here, making your current balance 1λ.
/u/BenHersheyLoves, please comment !givelambda to the most helpful advice you are given. You
will be rewarded 1λ if you do so. For more information, read the FAQ.

Video data:

Field|Data

-|:-
Title|Learning to Live Wild at Heart...
Thumbnail|Link
Views|30
Length|02:16
Likes/Dislikes|5/0
Comments|2
Description|This is a story about a book that I have read and how it has changed my philosophy on life. I love learning but I am learning that learning isn't enough as funny as that sounds. I am now in the process of learning to live an adventurous, enjoyable, fulfilling life. I am not Pursuit an Empty life...and if I only have head knowledge and never acknowledge my heart...that is exactly the life I will end up living. From now on I am following my heart and Pursuing a life worth relieving. ⤶⤶This video was inspired by the verses 1 Peter 1:18-19 and John 10:10,⤶as well as the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge.⤶⤶You can check out the book here:⤶https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400200393/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0⤶⤶John Eldredge is my favorite author and any of his books are worth reading.⤶⤶* Subscribe to hear more about my journey pursuing a full and adventurous life and how you can do the same. If you like the video, hit the like button, subscribe and share!⤶⤶All in love.⤶⤶You can connect with me here:⤶-Insta: https://www.instagram.com/benhersheyloves/⤶-Twitter: https://twitter.com/BHersh33

##Channel Data:

Field|Data**

-|:-
Name|Ben Hershey
Thumbnail|Link
Subscribers|23
Videos|5
Views|520



^/u/SmallYTChannelBot ^made ^by ^/u/jwnskanzkwk. ^PM ^for ^bug ^reports. ^For ^more ^information, ^read ^the ^FAQ.

Hello! Your post has already gotten quite a bit of response, but I'll throw my two cents in as someone who chose to become a Christian. I'll try to keep it brief. What stood out to me was that you said you don't believe 1) That Christianity is the one true religion, 2) the bible is infallible, 3) and the Earth is less than billions of years old. Personally, I believe that all of these are false too.

3) This is the easiest. I would hope that any mildly educated Christian does not actually believe that the Earth is only as old as humanity. Christians loove science. It's great! It's the study of the world around us, the world that God created for us. So, anyone who insists that the world is only a bit over 2000 years...well...don't let them represent your view on the rest of Christianity. Here is a GREAT lecture on the book of Genesis. It tells you why we can not take it literally, and how our actual story on creation came about based on the culture of the time. (Skip about the first 20 mins, this is a college class and he's going over the syllabus)

2) The Bible is NOT infallible. It was written by men. Men who are not perfect. Most of these books were written decades after the events that transpired. Imagine you were in a crowded room and suddenly a large group of people come in there and start break dancing. Then, a year later, you are asked to write everything you remember about the occasion, as was every other person in the room. There will be incredible discrepancies based on how the experience personally affected everyone, and what things they remember. Now does this make the Bible unreliable compared to other historical texts? Well, how do you think we gathered information about other events in history? The bible is one of the most accurate and sound historical texts we have, but due to its controversial nature, people are more likely to point out faults, exaggerations, discrepancies, etc. The Bible is not perfect, especially when not read in the correct way. There is history, poetry, stories, and many other types of literature within this one book, and to take a metaphorical poem to be literal would be very misleading and incorrect.

1. This is the one that I will probably get the most disagreements over. I do not believe that Christianity is the ONLY correct religion. I believe it is A correct way to recognize the God who created us. I believe there is only one God, and many religions that follow this multi-faceted God in different ways. What gives me conviction in Christianity is Jesus Christ. I believe there is enough reason to believe that he died and rose again, and as far as I'm aware, there are no other major religions that have as much historical backing in a figure who claimed to be the son of God, predicted his own death and return, and then actually did it. Lastly, I do not believe that it is within my power or knowledge to tell others that their religion is wrong. How in the world am I supposed to know that?? I don't. I don't have the omniscience to tell anyone that their beleifs are wrong; I just believe that mine are right.
   
   Two things to read that I think would really help you: Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. This is light, insightful, and inspiring reading and would definitely help you out in your current situation. I know a lot of people have suggested this to you. Do it! The second one is I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. This is heavier reading, but makes a great scientific argument as to why God is the most reasonable and rational answer to many different aspects of science.
   
   The last thing I want to leave you with is this: It's okay to have doubts. It's okay and completely understandable that you would have this period of disenchantment after leaving the bubble. Focus on the love of God, and use your doubts to strengthen your faith. Know there is not an answer for everything, and be okay with that. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to know as long as it doesn't tear you away from Him. Good luck, and God Bless!

I'd suggest Jimmy Akins The Fathers Know Best which compiles quotes from the Church Fathers and Akins enumerates them based on subject. It's not comprehensive but it's a good start and touches on a lot of things such as doctrines and dogmas, teachings and long held Church belief like contraceptives. It's a great book if you just want to look up what the Fathers have said and it's a great apologetics tool if you want to back up your positions. Either way, I think the following three books might be more inline with what you're looking for.

• Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea by Jim Papandrea.
  
  I haven't read this one, but I do know the author and it looks like it's right up your alley. Papandrea is a Catholic professor and this book covers important documents from the Early Church period and dissects the texts and explains them to you.
  
  
• [When the Church Was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers] (https://www.amazon.com/When-Church-Was-Young-Fathers/dp/1616367776/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1479111666&sr=8-3&keywords=church+fathers) by Marcellino D'Ambrosio
  
  Another book that is similar to Papandrea's book.
  
  
• Father's of the Church
  
  Similar in content to the last two. Worth checking out.
  
  And here's if you want to read the Church Fathers directly
  
  I've constantly heard that the Jurgens 3 volume set was one of the best physical sets to buy. It's pricey, but I do know that it's cheaper on ebay so might be worth looking for it on there. (That is assuming you're within the US)
  
  
• Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Collection by Phillip Schaff.
  
  I suggest you buy it digitally for next to nothing, it's great on Kindle and works well as a more comprehensive resource for studying the Fathers. His set is also digitalized online if you'd like to read it there for free. Absolutely no difference in content. Word of caution though, Schaff translated this in the late 19th century and was a Protestant, so his commentary may not always be historically and theologically sound. He does provide an exhaustive amount of footnotes that maintain the citations the Fathers used which is a task of its own. A great resource but with certain limitations.

No. On the contrary, I think it can be shown that theism is rationally obligatory; that is, that we deny the existence of God on pain of irrationality.

To avoid the conclusion of the Modal Cosmological Argument an atheist must deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason: He must hold to the principle that a physical object can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence. Schopenhauer aptly dubbed this a commission of, "the taxicab fallacy." The reason is as follows: Ordinarily, the atheist agrees that things have sufficient causes and explanations: headaches, global warming, diamonds, teapots, lightning. Indeed, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a lynchpin of rational thought for theist and atheist alike. But when the atheist is asked to follow the principle through to its ultimate logical consequence (i.e., the universe) he attempts to dismiss it like a hired hack—and not because it is rational to do so but because he doesn’t like where it is taking him.

As we move through the rest of the arguments the cost of atheism continues to rise. Faced with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an atheist must deny the precept of Parmenides that ex nihilo nihil fit; in other words, he must believe that physical objects can pop into existence uncaused out of metaphysical nothingness. To avoid the theistic implications of cosmological fine tuning, he must (in an extravagant defiance of the principle of parsimony) postulate the existence of infinitely many unobservable universes. To explain the origin of life, he must believe that it self-assembled by chance in the prebiotic soup of the early Earth when on every reasonable calculation this is prohibitively improbable. To reconcile his atheism with the essential properties of human mental states, he must deny those properties—including free will and, with it, the rational content of his own denial. He must, finally, deny moral objectivity since morality, on his metaphysic, arises from evolutionary processes in the service of reproductive fitness. This has the absurd and unpalatable consequence that to first principles of moral reasoning (say, It is always wrong to bayonet babies for sport) he cannot give his unqualified assent. And when it is pointed out to him that his belief that, "Beliefs that arise from evolutionary processes serve reproductive fitness and cannot be trusted," is itself a belief that arose from evolutionary processes and so, ex hypothesi, cannot be trusted, he has no reply.

The entailments of atheism are counterexperiential and absurd. Atheism cannot be rationally affirmed.

On the face of it agnosticism would seem to be a very reasonable position to take. What could be more prudent than suspending judgement in matters about which absolute certainty is impossible?

Note, however, that to be agnostic is to hold that, possibly, atheism is true. And since to affirm atheism is to affirm that all its entailments obtain, to hold to agnosticism is to affirm that, possibly, all the entailments of atheism obtain: It is possible that physical objects can exist without a sufficient reason for their existence; it is possible that physical objects can pop into existence out of nothingness uncaused—and so on. Clearly: If it is absurd to believe that married bachelors actually exist then it is just as absurd to believe that married bachelors possibly exist. Atheism and agnosticism cannot therefore be rationally affirmed and so it follows that theism is rationally obligatory.

Against all this the list of objections you cite have no force whatsoever.

>We would see many religions claiming absolute truth that are incompatible with each other, all with fervent and devout believers claiming all others are misled
>
>Vastly different moral codes among religions, cultures, and nations. And time periods. And...this is what we observe.

Yes. But see posts 20 to 23 here

>Prayers would not be answered aside from what chance would allow. And...this is what we observe.

This is a bare claim made without support.

>Miracles would be locked away in the past and would cease to happen in modern times, when the population is more educated and has recording devices. And...this is what we observe.

Recommended reading. Plot spoiler: This massive tome is an encyclopaedia of well-evidenced modern miracles.

>No religion would have compelling evidence outside of their own holy books (or confirmation bias). And...this is what we observe.

Pish posh.

>Believers would commit the same atrocities as everyone else. And...this is what we observe.

If you are saying that some purportedly-religious people act immorally that is a very insignificant claim. If you are saying that the religious life does not overall conduce to the production and pursuit of virtue that is a more interesting but very controversial claim in great need of support. But even granting it, how does this prove there is no God? Man has free will.

>Believers would not live any more or less privileged lives; misfortune or good luck would befall everyone regardless of their inner beliefs

God is not a fairy god mother. He is concerned with his creatures obtaining higher order goods, not material comfort.

>Faiths would continue to splinter into more and more sects, and argue over interpretations of minutiae instead of consolidating

This is a subtype of the problem of hiddenness which theists have coherently addressed.

>Supposed miracles would be unfalsifiable or proven to be hoaxes or simply natural occurrences

Miracles are unfalsifiable? This is rubbish. The Resurrection could have been falsified if the corpse of Jesus had been produced.

>New belief systems and/or cults would appear and sometimes gain large followings despite seeming ridiculous to everyone else (ie. Scientology)

See the above link on divine hiddenness.

>Religions would often need apologists or lies to keep their followers, and that wouldn't always work. And...this is what we observe.

I came to Christian Theism through Natural Theology. I think that on the total evidence it is far more probable than not that there is a God and that he met us face-to-face in the person of Jesus Christ. You are implying here that natural theology has no force.

Well, sure. Anyone can claim anything about the state of a philosophical field but if you actually do the heavy lifting and lay out your case you would get both my attention and my respect. Will you do it or will you tentatively withdraw your insinuation as unsubstantiated? There is no third option—at least, not one that avoids intellectual dishonour.

>Religious beliefs would often demonstrably contrast with observed reality

On the contrary, see my opening remarks.

>Greater access to information would correlate with growing non-religious populations

Google some stats. The vast majority of people in the vast majority of times and places have been theists. Today religiosity is, if anything, growing.

> Can you recommend some good material for beginners? I'd imagine it isn't a great idea to jump right into the Summa Theologiae.

The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, which sketches out some basic arguments for classical theism and draws on thinkers from many religious traditions and cultures, is a great starting point for further exploration. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies is an excellent book on the field as well.

> Why is theistic personalism more popular than classical theism? (I could be wrong on this, and it just may be that some of the more popular theistic philosophers happen to be personalists)

Many philosophers find it difficult to reconcile the idea of the God described by classical theism—absolutely simple, changeless, impassible, utterly transcendent, without a succession of different thoughts or emotions—with the idea of a personal God who cares about us in any way or listens to our prayers, and are willing to resolve this tension in favour of religious devotion. I have also heard certain rabbis make the argument that the Holocaust was such an evil event, God certainly would have prevented it if He were all-powerful, but why should it change our relationship with Him if He's only very powerful?

> Is Edward Feser a respected source for learning about classical theism? I enjoy his writing, and the man's insults are on point.

Yes. The Last Superstition received a very kind review from Anthony Kenny, and Stephen Mumford made it known on Twitter that he loved Scholastic Metaphysics. Feser has published on philosophy of religion in quite respectable journals like Midwest Studies in Philosophy and Nova et Vetera.

> Are there any Christians here, and if so, how do you reconcile divine simplicity with the trinity?

God is not made up of parts, and the persons of the Trinity are not parts. I think it is Christians who would reject divine simplicity who are in trouble with the Trinity, because if the three persons compose God, how can you say they are one? Yet there must be only one God.

The mystery of the Trinity cannot be proven by philosophical arguments, nor can it be in any way disproven. Our affirmation of God's simplicity is a fundamentally apophatic proposition; it is a negation of compositions found in creatures. While this is non-trivial knowledge about God, we still cannot presume to say what the simplicity of God is in itself.

> Not all theories are correct. But yea, if it's from God it kinda is a good idea.

Hmm...does that put you in the camp of something is moral because God commands it? You subject yourself to the arbitrary (per the Bible) whim of an incomprehensible deity who says that genocide is moral in specific circumstances because he commands it?

> Created to do? Nope.

Very much so. God creates humanity, gives them free will and can't help but know that they're going to exercise that free will, so he also sets up the conditions that will ultimately lead to their downfall via the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Could he have set up conditions so that the exercise of their free will doesn't condemn them? He's God, allegedly omnipotent and omniscient. It's ridiculous to assert that he couldn't do that, therefore he chose to do so.

> Seriously. As a group, atheists definitely don't stand out as moral.

Don't be too sure. Nor is it a fluke.

> What? What you think is right is not from God. What really is right is from God. Not everyone agrees what is moral. Thus it would be stupid to say that all have gotten that from God.

That is precisely my point. Someone who is getting their guidance from the True God ought to be demonstrably more moral than someone who doesn't, yes?

> Also to statistics and such, it's not enough to watch statistics between "all christians as you define it" and "all atheists". Because all christians as you define it includes whole lot of people who don't follow Jesus and thus mess with the statistics.

Now, that is the definition of No True Scotsman. You don't get to define who is or isn't a Christian just because you don't approve.

> Now that first part we can agree, that's a lot different than what you have said before, that ending not.

Okay, then please explain how we are seeing people who are receiving guidance from the True God are demonstrably different from those who aren't.

> Mmm... benefits... Christians are not supposed to look for benefits of this world, because things in this world are supposed to be of no worth.

Exactly! That's the scam! Make a claim that turns all empirical data irrelevant, and assert that the proof is in the afterlife so it's impossible to verify. It's fiendishly clever.

But again, we have certain promises about this world that simply aren't true.

> Untestable and cannot be falsified? Nah.

Well, since you say so.

> There would be a way to falsify bible to some extent. That is to put more people (honest ones) digging in areas where biblical stuff was supposed to be happened.

Um...no, not really. What archaeological evidence demonstrates is that the various writers of the Bible were contemporaries of those historical times. There's no archaeological evidence to demonstrate the Israelites were ever slaves in Egypt, or that they successfully rebelled against Ramses II. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Jericho was once a city of that era, but not that the Israelites knocked down its walls through divine intervention. This is the equivalent of claiming that spell-casting wizards are real because the Harry Potter novels give an accurate description of London.

> Also there is pretty direct evidence from a certain prophecy I certainly would hope that there'd be more archeologists there. In Lachish letter, or Lachish ostraca it was said that there was a prophet who had warned about a certain attack, and that there was 2 named cities left. Jeremiah gives those same names for cities, but also one more, which just says that it did fall before those 2. This also could of course be possibly forged, but if the text indeed is before they fell and as they tell same story as Jeremiah...

If you examine the evidence critically, you'll find that most prophecies in the Bible are worded vaguely enough that later writers can go back and reference them to fit their own narrative. A book that makes a prediction, and later confirms its own prediction, is not valid evidence of fulfillment of prophecy. The Bible is filled with wishful thinking.

>JWs have little in common with the teachings of Arius.

The heresy that Arius was guilty of was teaching that Jesus was a created being, that was subordinate in time to the Father. JWs teach that Jesus was the Archangel Michael, a created being, and are therefore guilty of the same heresy.

>The council of Nicaea brought the false teaching of the trinity doctrine.

The doctrine of the Trinity is easily recognizable in scripture if one reads what is actually written rather than deciding that they know better and just changing it. If you do some reading on the first ecumenical councils, the context in which they occurred, and what they were a response to, I think you'll find that their doctrinal determinations were appropriate and necessary to prevent further heretical teachings. I'd suggest The Story of Christianity Vol 1. The view that JWs and Mormons hold of the creeds and the ecumenical councils don't make any sense historically and only exist to reinforce non-biblical theology.

>Eventually other false teachings such as "Mary the Mother of God" crept into Christianity, none of which our first century brothers and sisters ever did.

Agree that the Marian doctrines are false, which is why I'm not a Catholic. The Reformation was an adequate response to that problem. The fact that later heresies crept into the church does not mean that the early creeds are incorrect. You'd have to actually prove that.

>Willing to change a teaching if found to be improper or unsupported by the scriptures.

Except you've re-written the scriptures to support your position and don't accept other translations as valid. That's not a good faith position, that's stacking the deck.

>Psalm 36 says Jehovah is the source of life. Jesus certainly is the way and the truth and the life. Jesus having been taught by his Father. Jehovah is the God who sent the light (truth) into the world that we might be saved.

Read what you wrote and then read Jesus' statement again. You're having to equivocate to minimize what Jesus actually calls himself in order to fit it into your theology. This is no different than when Mormons qualify God's role to being "just the God of this earth." They have to read their belief back into the text, which is exactly what you're doing here.

>Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 which in its entirety says... “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Yes, Psalm 82 is about the unjust judges of Israel. Is Jesus unjust? No. He is the Son of the "Most High God". Psalm 83:18 tells us that Jehovah (YHWH יהוה) is "The Most High God". Moses said at Deuteronomy 18:15... Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him. The Apostle Peter confirms that this prophet was Jesus at Acts 3:22.

This doesn't remotely address my issue with how you mishandled Jesus' application of this scripture. Jesus is calling the Jews who are persecuting him unjust judges. When God is describing the judges as gods in Psalm 82, he's mocking them. Please address the issue rather than drowning it in unrelated tangents.

>The scripture never says that Jehovah "The Most High God" would become flesh.

Sure hints at it though. Emmanuel means "God with us." That a person named Emmanuel would be also be called "Wonderful, Mighty, Counsellor, and everlasting Father is what we colloquially refer to as a clue :)

>God can not die.

The eternal, unchanging, singular substance that is Yahweh? Agreed. The incarnation of that being into human flesh? That's what all of Paul's theology and Jesus' application of the tetragrammaton to himself "Before Abraham was, I AM." is pointing to. I trust them before I trust the Watchtower society.

>He sent his only-begotten son in our behalf. Jesus as an obedient son (Hebrews 5:5)

Hebrews 5 is about the role of the High Priest and the function of that role in atoning for the sins of the people. The argument in this passage is that Jesus, as the Son, is both High Priest forever, negating the need for any other intercessor, and the God to whom reconciliation must be made. He is both the priest entering the tabernacle when God traveled with Israel, and God dwelling in that tabernacle. Or, going back to the name Emmanuel and the notion of atonement being a healing of the rift between Creator and creature, God with us, at last.

>is accomplishing all the work his Father gave him to do (John 4:34).

John 4 is about Jesus establishing the importance of His mission. Building the kingdom, which he explicitly instructs the disciples to do when he tells them immediately after this that He sent them to reap, now, that for which they did not labor, is more important than anything of this world. The context in which he is explaining this is an opportunity to explain the condescension He's subjected himself to in order to bring about the Kingdom.

>John clears this debate with his words at Revelation 19:13 where Jesus is given the title "The Word of God".

How do read that as the assignment of a title? In context we're told that "he has a name that no one knows but himself" and is called instead "The Word of God." That treatment of the Name is identical to how the Israelites treated יְהוָֹה. They wouldn't say YHWH, they would say Adonai as a placeholder. Ask any Hebrew speaker today to read you the Shema, which is the most important prayer in Judaism, and they'll render it as; Shema Israel. Adonai eloheynu , Adonai ehud! "Hear, o Israel. The Lord our God (interestingly, the plural form) the Lord is one!" Even in their most important prayer, the Name is too sacred too utter.

>The personal name of the Almighty God Jehovah (YHWH יהוה) occurs in the scriptures around 7,000 times. As far as I'm concerned, every bible that has removed his name from their pages has 7,000 + mistakes.

See my comment above about the name of God. יהוה is unpronounceable in Biblical Hebrew (no vowels) and is verbalized as Adonai or Ha Shem (the Name) The closest word to these in Koine Greek is κύριος which we render as LORD in deference to the reverent handling of God's name. All those places the NWT is replacing יהוה with Jehovah are a) mocking the relationship between God and Israel, and b) doing nothing more than any other translation is doing with the word LORD, you just have less linguistic justification for it.


>Your version of John 1:1 contradicts itself and verse 2. The Word can not be with God and be God.

That's the point John is making. This is an explicit reference to the Trinity. More importantly, in every document scrap we find of John 1, from either the Alexandrian or Byzantine text types, the rendering is the same. So either you have to argue that John wrote it down wrong, or that it means something that couldn't be understood in the context of 2nd temple Jewish ideas of the nature of God. Given the reaction that the Pharisees have to Jesus when he applies the Tetragrammaton to himself later in John and, given that this is a Gospel, the purpose of which is to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and the atonement to all mankind, it seems fairly self evident that John chose his words carefully. Especially in light of [John 1:3] where John ascribes the entirety of creation to the Word. Or [John 1:4] where he uses the language you'd referenced in Psalm 36 to attribute to Jesus what David had attributed to God alone. John pretty clearly means to indicate that the Word is YHWH.

>The created Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God (Acts 2:36)

Lord here is κύριος, the same as every rendering of יהוה in the Septuagint. And Peter is clearly playing with the wording as he cites Psalm 110:1, with the church reacting in horror as they realized that God Himself was crucified. Remember, these were people who had all witnessed the resurrected Christ, so their reaction to this declaration is not to the idea that the Messiah had been crucified, but that the Lord had been. So horrified that all 3000 of them were baptized and repented immediately after the sermon.

You'll notice that for every scripture reference you've used there's a perfectly (I know you'll disagree) valid way to exegete the text without adding anything to it. Every verse, understood in context, does something other than what you think it's doing when you use it as a prooftext. If JW scholarship were done on the basis of what the text actually says, we'd have more common ground, but you simply can't get to the conclusions you reach without wholesale changes to the meaning of words and attributing meaning that can't be read from the text itself.

u/versebot

Start with your interests. You may find that certain topics pique your curiosity more than others. A lot of what I've learned about Catholicism resulted from having a question, and wanting that question answered. Sometimes these questions are the results of selfish desire (ie, "Why can't I just have sex whenever I want?" or "Why do I have to give money to the poor?"), sometimes they're the result of professional interest ("What my employer is asking me to do seems immoral. Am I cooperating in evil?"), and sometimes they've just sounded interesting as I browse an FAQ box on various Catholic websites. Typically these questions will have a simple answer, with as deep an understanding that can be pursued as far as we want to take it (such as the relationship between man and woman being reflective of the Trinity, or the universal destination of goods being such that it isn't wrong for us to want nice things as long as recognize the source and ultimate orientation of those goods). Catholics Come Home may be just the thing for you, whether or not you consider yourself a 'returning Catholic' or a non-Catholic looking for the Truth. They've got some great spots airing on television and radio, one or two of which you may recognize (my personal favorite is Epic - I wish they offered it in high definition).

If you're looking for a video (or series of videos) to watch, Catholicism by Fr Robert Barron is amazing. He also offers a series of short videos on youtube via his Word on Fire ministry.

If you're looking for a Bible or companion thereto, Dr. Scott Hahn has a lot of great resources with links for ordering on his website. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is one that I own and recommend. It's got a lot of great footnotes and embedded resources for really giving you a better understanding of the literal interpretation of Scripture.

If you're looking for simple audio commentary suitable for listen on the way to work, on a plane, or in a train, check out Lighthouse Catholic Media. Lots of very affordable CDs that offer talks in chunks of about an hour from popular Catholic speakers.

Last but not least, you can't go wrong with some primary sources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great place for answers, though they may be a bit deeper than someone starting out may feel comfortable with. The latter is especially true of the Code of Canon Law.

And, of course, you're always free to use the search function on /r/Catholicism or post general queries on the sub itself.

Welcome home.

I'm a little late to the party, but I just thought I'd add my voice.

There are a couple things I would like to say. I'm sure none of it hasn't already been said somewhere here, but I'll just repeat for emphasis.

First of all, hi! And welcome. I'm sure you are feeling so confused and overwhelmed right now. That's okay. There's a lot to take in and consider. Take your time, go at your own pace, and make sure that wherever you end up is a place that is right for you. It's important to always consider what others have to say but that doesn't mean you have to follow what they say. You make your decisions and you determine your path.

If this road you are taking brings you to atheism (or anything unacceptable to your family and/or friends) you do not have to come out before you are ready. Depending on your situation it could be very detrimental to do so before the time is right. If someone will do wrong by you if they know the truth, then you are by no means obligated to give them the truth. And when the right time is, only you can say. Others may be able to help you with it, but when it comes down to it, it is your life and your decision.

And, again, if you eventually begin to identify as an atheist it is possible, and maybe even probable that you will feel angry. Many of us have been through it, or still are going through it. Angry about things that are happening around the world today and angry about things from your upbringing. That is okay too. There are many things we should be angry about. Just don't let that anger consume you. And be sure to still be reasonable. Anger can be a good thing when placed appropriately and if it's kept in perspective. It's a hard field to navigate but you'll figure it out with time and experience.

Don't get so caught up in one worldview that you are stuck in an echo chamber, never exposed to differing thoughts and opinions. Keep an open mind and don't shut things out simply because you don't want to change your opinion or are so convinced of something that you think there's no chance you could ever be wrong. This really applies to everything in life...not just religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I wanted to address you personally, rather than discuss the beliefs because I'm sure you have been given so much to consider and read already. It is likely that everything I have to suggest has already been mentioned, but:

• There are so many good videos at The Atheist Experience
  
  
• Greta Christina's blog has many wonderful and thought provoking writings
  
  
• "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins is incredible (as is most of his work)
  
  
• Just about any Christopher Hitchens debate on YouTube is fascinating. I also loved his book "God Is Not Great" but if you aren't a reader it may be tiresome and difficult to get through.
  
  
• PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula is excellent as well.
  
  I could go on, but this post is already so much longer than I intended. So I'll just end on this note: things might look pretty frightening and overwhelming right now, but don't let it scare you off. There is no better feeling than learning and coming to your own conclusions about who you are and what you believe. Especially if you've had those things decided for you your entire life. If you ever need help or have questions, come here. There are many of us who are more than willing to do what we can to help.
  
  Good luck! :)

>I’m genuinely confused, how is your faith in the bible different than cult members’ faith in their cult leaders’ words?

The difference between the Bible and a cult leader's words are pretty substantial.

• The Bible is a compilation of works which require a lifetime of learning, reflection, and discussion in order to contemplate their meaning. Its substance and weight dwarfs that of the average cult leader's flimsy theology.
  
  
• The Bible has an incredibly rich and historical literary tradition going back thousands of years. It is easily the most important book to exist in the West. The fact that the West's most significant and genius philosophers, teachers, historians, and authors held the Christian faith as central to their lives lends at least some veracity to the Bible's intellectual and historical substance.
  
  A charismatic preacher such as a cult leader has little but his words to legitimize himself. Thousands of books and letters have not been written around the People's Temple. There is no systematic and epistemological study of the vast majority of cults that matches that of Christianity or even the other major religions on Earth. Even most academics who are atheists and are not being completely uncharitable will agree with this.
  
  >Also, what is the single philosophical argument you find most impactful to your conversion?
  
  The Five Ways by Aquinas are good. But their function is not to convince people that God exists as much as it is to establish a foundation for the rest of Aquinas's theology. If you want a good book on the "essence" of what God is I would suggest this book.
  
  But honestly, the people who become convinced of God's existence are not those who read a philosophical proof and then believed. Speaking from the experience of my most intelligent friends, belief in God comes from the most unexpected places. One of my friends came to believe while reading a passage from Dante's Inferno. Another came to believe while going to the March for Life with their fiance. And there is another friend who realized they believed while arguing with someone over the existence of universal morality.
  
  My point is that belief in God does not come from reading a single philosophical or historical text. Rather, it appears from a complex blend of life experience, knowledge, and reflection. It is a long process that even the person himself may not notice until they find themselves at the cusp of believing. Another way of thinking about it is this: a war is often not won due to a grand battle; a war is won because of the many hundreds of skirmishes across many battlefields and points.

Perhaps it's time to move away from LDS specific arguments, and start questioning the God concept in general; especially as it relates to morality.

One argument I've always liked, is that even if there is a god, by far the strongest test of morality it could ask for is if a person will be moral while believing there is no such being, and no promise of reward or punishment.

If she is willing to read, I recommend the following:

• Start with The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's much less confrontational than the stuff from more current atheist writers, and his argument is awesome. He basically debunks religion by dismantling the new age movement, and then showing that religion is basically the same.
  
  
• After reading that I would go with "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, or "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. Both are much more confrontational, and in my opinion, are not recommended unless someone is already close to on the fence. Both also deal heavily with the immorality of religion, but I think "God Is Not Great" probably puts more focus on that particular issue.
  
  YouTube is also a fantastic resource. Here are some of the video series that I found particularly convincing as I was going through my own transition:
  
  
• Why I Am No Longer a Christian
  
  
• Psychology of Belief
  
  
• Morality By QualiaSoup: 1 - Good Without Gods, 2 - Not So Good Books, 3 - Objectivity and Oughtness
  
  
• The Best Optical Illusion in the World
  
  I think it's also important to remember that there is are alternative worldviews out there which are not based on religion, which are just as rewarding and fulfilling, if not more so. Here are a few videos that have sparked that sense of wonder and that I used to associate with the spirit. Most of these are not direct attacks on religion, but rather are just inspiring ideas from a secular\scientific worldview. I recognize that these may not have universal appeal, but they spoke to me, and may do so for you and your wife as well:
  
  
• My Spirituality as an Atheist
  
  
• You are Here (Pale Blue Dot)
  
  
• The Sagan Series
  
  
• The Most Astounding Fact: Neil deGrasse Tyson
  
  
• We Stopped Dreaming: Episode 1, Episode 2
  
  
• Science Saved My Soul
  
  
• Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?
  
  
• Instruction Manual for Life
  
  
• We Got Scared
  
  
• The Greatest Speech Ever Made
  
  

There are several very famous Catholic apologists who converted after reading about Church history and reading the works of the Church Fathers. Peter Kreeft is one such person. Scott Hahn is another (although his main impetus was finding Catholic doctrines in scripture rather than from reading the fathers).

There is a book called "Surprised by Truth" edited by Patrick Madrid which features the stories of 11 or so evangelicals who became Catholics and several of them had reading the fathers as a turning point.

Jimmy Akin has a book called The Fathers know best which could be a very good introduction (I haven't read but I very much appreciate Jimmy Akin's apologetic efforts, he has a very gentle and patient persona with a thorough and systematic approach).

Pope Benedict XVI spent a few years of his papacy talking about a different church father every Wednesday and he walked his way through all the major fathers from the late 1st century (Clement of Rome) to the 12th century (Peter Lombard). Ignatius Press has compiled all these talks into two volumes. Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine and Church Fathers and Teachers: From Saint Leo the Great to Peter Lombard.

I have read Benedict's introductions to the fathers and I enjoyed them immensely. He doesn't supply many quotations from them but he does give you an overview of their life and times, the focus of their theological works, and the significance of their works for us today. I profited a lot from reading them.

There is a work called The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the face of God by Robert Louis Wilken which is also a very useful overview of Christian theology in the first 7 centuries. His focus is less on the individual personalities of the fathers but more on the current of their thought and the intellectual climate that it was developing in. He covers liturgy, doctrinal development, Christology, faith and reason, interpretation of scripture, moral theology, arts and literature and a bunch of other stuff if I remember rightly. I profited from this book even more than the Pope Benedict ones I reckon.

Many have given proofs for God (Edward Feser's Aquinas and Five Proofs for the Existence of God are very good on that front), but in terms of knowing that Christianity is true, there are a few main ways that folks do it. While proving God is deductive, so you only would need one proof to succeed, the Christian faith cannot be proven deductively but would need induction, so more than one proof is good.

1. Scripture can be seen as self authenticating. There are certain parts of the Bible that every scholar, whether religious or atheist, would acknowledge was written by Saint Paul, who met eyewitnesses to Jesus and who said he had a vision of Him. If you read his first letter to the Corinthians or his one to the Galatians, I think it's hard to come from reading them and not to think that he dealt with something very real. He believed that those around him and he himself had experienced something absolutely miraculous, and reading his writings, we have no reason to doubt him as a witness.
   
2. If you want more technical proofs for the Resurrection of Jesus, you can look at academic ones like Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus, or NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, or the more popular The Case for Christ.
   
3. The Catholic Church fulfills prophecies. I don't have time to go into this too much, but in the Old Testament they talk about a man who would be born in Bethlehem (Micah) who would suffer and be vindicated (Isaiah), then have a kingdom that would go around the world established by God (Daniel) while bringing knowledge of the God of Judaism to all the nations. Such claims at the time would have been ridiculous because Israel was a tiny little nation, so the fact that it came true is quite impressive. I could go more into this if you want.
   
4. There are many miracles that still happen today by Christians: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527787634&sr=1-6&keywords=miracles Here is a book that gives a good analysis, and here's a medical article from Oxford talking about them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/
   
   These proofs are not deductive, so there is some level of uncertainty, but taken together, I think it gives a very good case.

I think you would enjoy this book greatly: http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

Most complaints from non-militant atheists (love these guys, they love deep philosophical conversation) I see are do to the so called dark ages brought about by the Church or religion in general. While members of the Catholic Church have never been perfect, the Church is responsible for some of the most progressive ideas ever to be born of man. The university system, science, it's all really fascinating to read about.

I've never been an atheist but I haven't always looked favorably on the Catholic church either (I wasn't born a Catholic and am still learning about it before making decisions). This book really helped me see what a tremendously positive force the Church has been throughout the ages. From making the western world a joy to live in to systematic helping of unfortunates.

Best of luck in any other books recommended here that you decide to read. In my experience, there's some warm and loving about the Church that I can't move away from now and I hope you find something similar or the same or at the very least feel good about continuing to learn more about a topic that interests you.

Minimally, if the effect of prayrer is unverifiable, it would be wrong to say it universally fails (I don't know if you said that but someone did). Prayrer isn't deliberately unfalsifiable, I suppose the nature of prayrer and testing scientifically if prayrer 'works' is . . not really a matter of science, even though I can imagine certain kinds of scientific tests to observe if certain prayrers 'work', and even the term 'work' is difficult to use because of the nature of prayrer. So maybe it would be better to say a significantly better methodology would need to be employed.

If God didn't heal 100 out of 100 amputees, the most you could say based on that experiment is that God said no, 100 out of 100 times. . and then you are assuming there is a God in the first place, and God could have morally sufficient reasons for saying no 100 times.

In regards to the nature of answered prayrer, it is not true theologically speaking that all answered prayrer must happen supernaturally. So answered prayrer could come in the form of a friend meeting a need, and I completely grant that that makes the conversation in regards to science and prayrer even more confusing, which I think supports my point regarding the general untestability of the effects of prayrer in a certain sense.

We live amongst brilliant people so I think something could be done, but the experiments im aware of are either too simple or are based on a superficial understanding of prayrer.

Not that you need to read it, but theirs an incredible book by Craig Keener called Miracles that has significant crossover into the conversation we're having here, more in the region of things like exotic medical ailments being undone. Very well documented. Conclusions aside, it is good work. And its nice to hear what you have to say, too, so I appreciate your conversing :)

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.

If you haven't studied "anti-Mormon" sources, you can't claim you aren't any of those things, because that's part of it. The constant reminders to only get your information from the church. That is one of the biggest elements of indoctrination, brainwashing, and sheltering.

They're preventing you from doing thorough research and frankly, it's not our job to digest all of for you. The problems with the church are so numerous there is no way anyone is going to be able to lay them all out for you in a comment on a reddit post. Asking us to tell you why we left is not evidence you weren't indoctrinated if you refuse to go do the study yourself.

Most active members have no idea just how much information there is and that no, it is not spun. Here's a little bit of the history on why and how the real history the church is now trying to manage finally came out. There is a couple in Provo who have a Christian ministry basically dedicated to taking down the Mormon church. Around 1990 they published a pamphlet that talked about some serious stuff the vast majority of members didn't know, like Joseph's Smith polygamy. Normally the church wouldn't respond to these things, but they felt the claims were worrisome enough (getting questions from members) they needed to publish a response, so they invited two BYU historians into the archives (you know the ones in the mountain) to study ALL of the historical documents they had and write a refutation debunking the Tanner's claims.

For about two years Michael Quinn and Dan Vogel studied every document and took photos of each one, with the church's blessing. Problem was, not only did what they find back up the Tanner's claims, but the actual history was much worse (things like Polyandry). They did write a rebuttal, but it was rejected by the Q15 and they were told not to publish anything at all, ever. More than twenty years later the essays on lds.org the church finally published to at least be a little bit honest are right out of Vogel and Quinns essays. By being a little bit I mean, if you not only read the essays, but then follow the footnotes, well. It's not good. The Saints book is the same way. It doesn't out and out lie, but talk about out of context and leaving out very important information if it's too faith challenging. It's still not fully honest. Not even remotely. Shouldn't the church have to be as honest as they expect the membership?

Being historians, not publishing and keeping it all a secret didn't sit well with them and they published anyway. In fact, Dan Vogel made all those facsimiles of all those documents, thousands and thousands of them, available to any other scholar wanting to pour through them and publish their own findings. For their trouble they were excommunicated as part of the September Six (google it).

Many (maybe most on church history) of the anti-Mormon books out there directly source these documents and you can even get them yourself. Dan Vogel published all of them in several volumes called, "Early Mormon Documents." The goal was to publish all the source material he and Quinn had collected without editorial comment. I'm not sure how much more objective it can get or how any Mormon can claim the stacks of books that came out of these are not sourced or dishonest.

If you want a summary list of the major issues, and it's a long one, you should download the free pdf version of the CES letter on cesletter.org. Then read the rebuttals over on Fair Mormon. Then read the rebuttals to the rebuttals.

When I left, a nice summary didn't exist, so I had to read books and boy did I read a lot of them. I happened to start with Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, which is well sourced out of the RLDS archives, but I also read Grant Palmer's, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. Incidentally, he was another BYU professor excommunicated for publishing the irrefutable truth. Keep in mind, these people were active members. They were not trying to tear down the church. They simply felt it was morally wrong to continue to have blatant and significant inaccuracies in teaching manuals, in conference talks, in Seminary, in well......everything.

My reading list (those I can remember at least):

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith

An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (A Biography)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power

Mormon America: The Power and the Promise

If you still think everything other than what is directly published by the church are anti-Mormon lies or tricks, well I can help you there at too. How deep have you gotten into Journal of Discourses? It's almost worse than anything written by an anti-Mormon. So much worse than a couple of troublesome quotes. I also re-read the D&C while reading Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith in tandem. It was a lot harder to swallow that way to say the least and both of those are obviously considered faithful study.

​

If you want to claim you aren't brainwashed or indoctrinated you have to do the work. Saying "I posted on Reddit and no one convinced me," or the other favorite, "people much smarter than me have already studied all that and say its fine," are not valid arguments. They're lazy cop outs.

​

Good luck on your search for truth. I encourage you to study it out from ALL sources, including faithful sources you haven't yet studied.

​

edited to add: Forgot one of the most important. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith

edited edited to add: If you want something a little more biased for the church you can even just read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. If you're going to read the D&C and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith at the same time as I did, I recommend at least reading this one first. It's going to be much clearer if you've read at least one of the biographies and Rough Stone Rolling was published by Deseret Book.

I have a few book recommendations for you. I don't know what you can find in French, but that is what I recommend.

Bible:

• I found the Oxford Catholic Study Bible: Personal Study Edition to be a great resource. It is a NABRE translation and has tons of notes and a reading guide. It really helped me when reading the Bible for the first time.
  
• A priest at my church uses the standard Oxford Catholic Study Bible. I hear that the notes in that edition are more theological and not intended for beginners.
  
• Finally, if you just looking for NT, I hear the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is a great RSVCE study Bible.
  
  Books:
  
  
• I really like Scott Hahn books. He does a really good job distilling the faith into layman's terms. His book, Living the Mysteries: A Guide for Unfinished Christians lists different topics about the Catholic faith in the eyes of the Church Fathers.
  
• Also, if you want to hear good lectures, The Modern Scholar lecture series on Audible gives really good treatments on specific topics of the church.

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.
   

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".

Hi OP, thanks for the insightful post. You did a lot of collecting of good Bible verses to make the point.

Essentially, your argument is a reductio ad absurdem taking the form: "If X, then Y. Not Y. Therefore not X."

1. If the world is full of magic (as the world seems to be described in the Bible), then there will be verifiable, creditable magic to be present in history and in modern times.
   
2. But there isn't verifiable creditable magic in history and modern times.
   
3. Therefore, the world is not how it is described by the Bible -- a world full of magic.
   
   I think you well supported the first premise. And the conclusion follows from the two premises.
   
   The place to look is your second premise. The second premise you simply stated. You said that history and modern times are not replete with miracles (except ones that are "discredited").
   
   If I challenged the second premise, asserting that anyone who cares to investigate miracle claims (from Christians or any other group) will discover that the observable world is indeed full of them, what would you say?
   
   I'd venture that some people (and just wait for the comments!) will mock me. But let's ignore them.
   
   

• Some people will say that many miracle claims have been discredited. That's true! But many historical claims have been discredited, and that doesn't discredit all of history, only those claims. Many historical claims, and many miracle claims, have been credited and verified.
  
  
• Some people will say "Where's the evidence? Prove it to me." To that I say, four things: first, I'd say beware of sealioning. It's not my job to prove to flat-earthers that the earth is round. It's not my job to prove to materialists that reality is material and formal. If you don't know how things stand, or who to trust, that's on you. But if the question is sincere, perhaps start with Craig Keener's book, Miracles (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) Thirdly, "proof" is completed when the proof has been given. Persuasion is not the same as proof. I can prove things to my five year old son that will not persuade him because he is being unreasonable. So you have to persuade yourself; the proof is out there.
  
  Fourthly, and relatedly, the problem with doubting a thing's existence is that doubt disincentivizes the search for evidence. If I don't believe in sea creatures, I am not likely to go swimming in the ocean looking to "prove" to myself that the ocean is indeed empty.
  
  All that to say, the evidence and proof are plain to most people and readily available unless you are (a) already so sure that you're right that you only mock and dismiss those who could potentially offer you evidence and (b) don't go out of the way to seek the uncomfortable truth about our world.
  
  I believe in science, have a Ph.D., and have personally experienced miracles and know people who perform miracles with some regularity. So, despite skepticism of some particular claims, I credit many of the Biblical stories, historical stories, and modern stories. I don't think that I am weird in this way. Disbelief in the supernatural is a minority report, globally. Most scientifically educated Americans believe in the supernatural. About 50 percent of working scientists are religious and believe in a god or higher power (footnote: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)
  
  So there is nothing particularly wild or mysterious about the phenomena you describe as "magic." I've seen it personally, and hundreds of people I know have experienced it personally. So, when I consider the evidence impartially (including verifiable eye-witness accounts), I'd say your second premise needs revisiting.
  
  But like I said, I appreciated the post, and enjoy thinking these things through.
  
  I'd appreciate non-mocking thoughtful responses as well.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Edit: added footnote to verify claim that a slight majority of scientists believe in a god or higher power (51%) according to Pew.

Token Catholic chiming in with the suggestion that you have a look at the Catholic faith. I'm converting from Protestantism because I find Catholicism to be more consistent with historical Christianity and more intellectually satisfying. I almost became Anglican last year, but it just seemed so incomplete compared to the richness of Catholicism, no offense to Anglicans intended. The main things that drew me in were apostolic succession, the consistency and unity of the Church, and my rejection of sola scriptura as illogical and self-contradicting.

Catholic Answers has a lot of great resources. If this piques your interest, I also recommend you take a look at the Catechism online or buy your own hard copy. I also recommend you check out some of Scott Hahn's books; he is also a convert and his books are accessible, but thorough. And, if you aren't already completely overwhelmed with information, you may use this website to find a parish.

I wish you well on your spiritual journey. I hope you find a place where you feel welcome and comfortable, and get to know the Lord.

Edited to add: You can't get more personal in your relationship with Jesus than through the Eucharist.

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.

Cheers, thanks!

Yeah I agree 100%. There was a period of like 5 or so years where I was a full blown atheist. I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective, but I definitely like having a very personal relationship with God, like I do now. I don't buy the whole "CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND MASTER PLANNER OF ALL THINGS" idea of God. The God I put credence in is more like a paternal figure that intervenes and gives you strength when you need it. Nothing more.

If you want a really good source on Jesus the man, and not Jesus Christ, then read this: http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375671861&sr=8-1&keywords=zealot

In addition to Mere Christianity here are a few more worth checking out. Despite the need for faith there is far more evidence for Christianity then I ever knew until recently. These are just a few of the resource that have helped me.

GodQuest

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Stealing from God

The Language of God

The Fingerprint of God

I have put them in the order I would recommend reading but they are all great resources.

Another good resource for spiritual journeys are church small groups. A number of larger churches often have weekly groups or 6-8 week meetings geared for new believers and seekers. All the resources in the world are great by my journey was more shaped by talking through these things then anything else.

Glad to hear where your journey has brought you. I will be praying that God helps you find the resource and people you need to fill in the gaps.

No reason to be rude, dude.

> Stories aren't evidence.

Of course they are. Every day in courts all over this country, attorneys call witnesses to the stand to tell their stories, and those are counted as evidence. I direct you to http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/202.html:

"Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion.

"Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as 'circumstantial evidence.' In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.

"As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves."

> Well then present a single piece, just one piece of verifiable evidence that miracles or demonic possessions occur.

Craig Keener of Asbury Theological Seminary has a recent two-volume work, "Miracles", that deals with the biblical miracles (volume 1) and post-biblical accounts (volume 2), collecting and evaluating many accounts up to the present day. A quick google will turn up plenty of reviews, videos, interviews, articles, debates with Keener on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

> occultists have zero magical powers

There are plenty of evidences out there of the legitimacy of these things. You obviously, like everyone else, choose what you will believe, and you live by faith in what you deem to be evidence vs. hearsay.

> where did their magic come from?

Spiritual forces of the occult. I don't think it has disappeared from the earth at all.

> If you are going to attempt to claim that the stories of exodus are history

There are a number of evidences for the Israel exodus from Egypt. If you would like to discuss them, I'd be glad to.

And, btw, there weren't millions of them. Realistic numbers from the biblical account put the population of the Israelites at about 25,000.

> Or reading. Maybe I read.

Well, I'll take that as an insult. The implication is that I don't. Hm. A bit of prejudice on your part.

> Is it faith to not believe something that has no other backing?

I define faith as an assumption of truth based on the evidence (and faith is always based on evidence) that makes it reasonable to make that assumption. When I go to sit in a chair, I can't be 100% sure that it will hold me (chairs occasionally do break). But I've sat in this chair 100 times, my eyes tell me it looks the same, and so I plant my rear in it, believing and assuming it will hold me. It's the same when I turn the key to start my car (I have faith it will start), going to the store (I have faith it's still there), or thousands of other things in daily life. It's what the author of Hebrews claims in Heb. 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There is a certainty based on evidence, though because it is not seen it is subject to faith, just like the store in my previous example. A blind person cannot distinguish color, but color is a real thing, and its reality is unaffected by whether or not the blind person is able to appreciate them.

Christianity is based in evidences, not blind beliefs. That's why it's historical, and not philoso-theological like Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Islam. The earth is here as evidence of a creator. The existence of the Jews as a people group is evidence of God's work in history. The evidence of Jesus as a historical figure and in his death and resurrection is presented in affirmation of his deity. Faith in the Christian definition is distinctly evidentially based, and not just an "out there" kind of "well, you just hafta believe."

I'll add this: There are certainly different kinds of existence. The existence of the chair behind you is very different from the existence of memories, or the thoughts in your brain. Your car in the driveway exists in a different way than, say, time does. Physics cannot and does not cover the whole of reality; it's only a slice of it. I said faith is an assumption of truth based on evidence that makes it reasonable to make that assumption. If your friend tells you they bought you a ticket to a concert, you'd get in the car (by faith) and go with them, because you have all kinds of evidences (your relationship with them, their tone of voice, their body language, etc.) that make it reasonable for you to believe what they are telling you. I find the same dynamics and realities in my relationship with God.

> Ok maybe the source isn't the best but that's not the only one.

Carrier says that it pretty much is. At the end of that review to which I linked, he laments that no one has replicated Grave's work.

But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

>So what are your reasons for Christianity not having ties with pagans?

This isn't how arguments work. The one making a claim provides the evidence.

But I won't deny that some pagan concepts influenced how the New Testament authors wrote. For example, Paul's use of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25 almost certainly has some overtones imported from pagan Greek thought. But that's a far cry from Grave's suggestion, popular among the New Atheists today, that the whole notion of the crucified and risen Jesus is a myth taken wholesale from pagan thought.

I'll repeat my exhortation that I edited into my comment above: studying how the New Testament and early Christianity related to its own historical context is a laudable goal that I would commend to anyone willing to put in the effort, and there are good resources out there to help. Go to the scholars who are well regarded in their field, and avoid sensational, popular-level works. Ehrman's undergraduate-level textbook is a good start. For the more ambitious student, N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God contains quite a bit on the historical context of early Christianity in the Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish worlds; it appears on many a grad school syllabus.

I would recommend two books, Wild at Heart by John Eldridge and Captivating by John and Stasi Eldridge. They are both amazing books which talk about the needs and natures of both the man and the woman in regards to relationship.

I have not found any literature that does a better job of talking about the unique needs and strengths of both the man and the woman. He is a Christian author, though, and his faith informs his writing to a great degree, so it would depend on you tolerance for religious writing. Still, I would encourage you to read both together.

Wild at Heart: https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Revised-Updated-Discovering/dp/1400200393/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=wild+at+heart&qid=1565098503&s=gateway&sr=8-2

Captivating: https://www.amazon.com/Captivating-Revised-Updated-Unveiling-Mystery/dp/1400200385/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=captivating+by+john+and+stasi+eldredge&qid=1565098553&s=gateway&sprefix=captivating&sr=8-1

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.

1. Nope. Not rude or disrespectful.
   
2. http://www.orthodoxiya.fm/ (If you speak Arabic, here is an Orthodox on-line radio station. If not- you'll be just as lost as I am with this! However, if you like chants, there is some good chanting to be found here. If you prefer or know English better, then this might be more up your alley: Ancient Faith Radio (music/chanting, podcasts, blogs)
   
   Well, I'll just share books and links with you that I just shared to someone else on another thread. I don't know how useful some of them will be for you, since you don't have a Christian background, but there they are anyway. Regarding specific differences between Copts, Armenians, Old Believer, and Eastern Orthodox, I don't know of any books that specifically address the differences (but Ethiopians are Copts and Greeks/Russians/Antioch are all Eastern Orthodox). ;)
   
   The Orthodox Faith by Thomas Hopko (It's all on-line- so no need to buy anything here.)
   
   Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom (Wonderful resource for anyone.)
   
   On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius (Catholics of all stripes should approve of this, but this is definitely something the East looks at more frequently in my observation. Also all on-line.)
   
   The Meaning of Icons by Vladimir Lossky (Icons are often overlooked in book recommendations on Orthodox Christianity. It's a shame. It's one of the most fascinating subjects.)
   
   On Acquisition of the Holy Spirit by St. Seraphim of Sarov (Even the pope has recognized him as a saint. This is a wonderful and deceptively simple (i.e. heavy) read. This is also all on-line. There are also six you-tube videos for this so you can just listen: https://youtu.be/pBynRA0wNg8 )
   
   Also, I don't think this has much to do with theology, but I really liked them:
   
   The Way of a Pilgrim (I recommend this book to everyone. Always.)
   
   How to Live a Holy Life by Gregory Postnikov (This is a small book. It's deceptively simple. The doing of what's in it is more difficult.)
   
   

3. For an Orthodox view, I highly recommend this podcast series on the bible to you. Dr. Constantinou of the University of San Diego essentially covers what she would in one of her survey courses. This goes in-depth on the topics of scripture (old and new). It truly starts with the second podcast (Inspiration and Inerrancy) and moves on to cover oral tradition, bible manuscripts, the septuagint, the canon, translations and versions, patristic interpretation, the school of Alexandria, the school of Antioch, and the Latin fathers in other podcasts. Search the Scriptures: Introduction to the Bible (Lesson 2)

What you're looking for is called higher criticism or the historical-critical method. I've been an atheist since I was a kid (raised Protestant(, but I still really enjoy learning about Christianity from a secular perspective.

For a Bible with commentary, I recommend the The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version — you can grab a used version really cheap. Pair it with these lectures from Yale, they can also be found on YouTube and some podcast apps.

Here's a list of other academic podcasts and university courses that I recommend. If you listen to the two podcasts after following Yale, you should have a very strong foundation of Biblical and Christian knowledge.

There are some great reader recommendations in the wiki, and feel free to post your own questions at r/AskBibleScholars — just be aware that some questions are theological, and only certified scholars can I answer questions. r/ academicbiblical is another sub that you'll enjoy — anyone can respond to posts, but theological discussion is not allowed.

For the past year I've had regular conversations with the missionaries who work in our area. In an effort to understand their beliefs I've gone through several books, among which is Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which deals with issues like the authorship of the Book of Mormon, the golden plates, and other hot-button issues. Palmer, an active Mormon, ends this book with the conclusion that Joseph Smith probably never translated anything correctly; that the Book of Mormon is an amalgamation of the Bible, 19th-century doctrine, and his own fruitful imagination; and that some of the foundational events (such as the First Vision) were the result of elaborations over time. Yet Palmer does not reject Mormonism and instead calls for a renewed focus on Jesus Christ.

When it comes to the question of whether Mormons are Christians, I think we must tread cautiously for two reasons. First, Jesus said that it's not our place to decide whether someone else is saved; that authority belongs to Jesus alone. Second, Mormonism is a spectrum like any other system of thought. Someone like Grant Palmer could identify as Mormon while clearly demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit that always accompanies saving faith. In the same way, it's possible for someone to identify as Christian and yet clearly fail to keep in step with the Spirit.

I tend to think that if Paul were to write a letter to the Mormon church today, he would write something like his letter to the Galatians. The Galatians were given the plain and simple gospel, yet they were convinced by a rogue sect to add on all the burdens of following the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. Did Paul consider the Galatians to no longer be Christians because of this? I don't see a clear indication of this. What is clear is that Paul insisted that the gospel remain absolutely pure, even if an angel brought a different gospel. This is a good lesson for the Mormon church as well as Christian denominations.

What keeps Mormonism going is not the evidence for their faith (since there is little if any at all), but their reliance on emotions (the "burning in the bosom") as a sort of spiritual divining rod for truth. Random chance will ensure that some small fraction of people will get a positive answer to their prayers, even if it's purely coincidental. The fact that emotions are so untrustworthy is precisely why Jonathan Edwards preached against the dependence on one's emotions as proof of conversion nearly a hundred years before the Mormon church was founded.

The aspect of Mormonism that most concerns me is not its unique beliefs, but its tendency to produce atheists. It seems to me that most Mormons who leave their faith because of the lack of evidence also assume that Christianity, on which Mormonism claims to be based, has just as little evidence in its favor. I firmly believe that Christianity is an evidence-based religion, and so I spend a lot of time talking with the missionaries about the reliability of the New Testament and the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. They may never leave Mormonism, but if they do, I want them to see that Christianity is a rational choice.

Sure, so apart from a lack of reason to accept those extraordinary claims I listed before, I would also defend the statement that we have firm evidence that Christianity is a human invention, a simple product of human culture.

This should not be too outlandish a claim, as even Christians can probably agree that most of the worlds religions are creations of our changing society (after all, Christians probably would disagree that Hinduism, paganism, Nordic, Hellenistic, aboriginal religions were divinely inspired/authored).

By looking back into the origins of Christianity, and the origins of the Judaic system from which it is derived, we can very clearly see changes in religious deities and stories, as the religion began incorporating myths from surrounding areas and as general patterns of beliefs changed. From what we can currently understand, it appears the the origin of Christianity started as a polytheistic pantheon with at least Yahweh, El, Baal and Asherah. It then moved slowly from polytheism to henotheism to monaltry to monotheism, as was relatively common in the Axial Age.

All of this points to the religion not representative of singular divine inspiration, and instead being representative of being a product of human culture, changing along with society.

This is a rather large topic of course, and if you want further reading, I recommend:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
• Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) by John Day
  
• God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith
  
• Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, by Michael S. Heiser, PhD
  
• The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah by Andrew Halladay
  
• Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel By David Steinberg
  
• The evolution of God

/u/unheeding has made an excellent suggestion. I really like how Macullough weaves in the Israelite history as essential to understanding the Christian history. If I might widen the variety here, however, if by only a little bit:

Justo Gonzalez is fantastic. He has a two volume, recently re-edited series on the history of Christianity called The Story of Christianity. Here's Vol. 1 and Vol. 2

Gonzalez also has a short book that focuses on the history of Christianity through the development of doctrines called A Concise History of Christian Doctrine which, as far as I can gather is a much condensed version of the another three volume set that I've never read. Gonzalez is fun, approachable, and honestly a really good read.

I am also in the middle of Christianity: A Social and Cultural History and it is quite good so far, though I've not gotten into it quite so much as Gonzalez.

I am also in the middle of an Old Testament history book for my Hebrew Bible course called Understanding the Old Testament which has a really exciting philosophy of doing history and I'm really into it. This book has me at least as excited as Gonzalez, but Anderson's approach is a very responsible one which still evokes power and mystery revolving around the development of the Hebrew canon as well as those things that we simply cannot know, even if we can try to take a really good shot at it.

I hope this helps.

Hinduism was just an example. Maybe I should have been a bit more to the point. Sorry.

Wikipedia list well over 100 "religions and spiritual traditions". Please list which ones you investigated and justify your claim that each lacks 'evidence'.

Just because someone was an atheist, or a Hindu, or a Jew, or a Muslim, and then 'found evidence' leading them to believe a different religion was "correct', or had more 'evidence (however you'd like to term it), doesn't really mean anything for anyone aside from themselves. I assume you realize that just as many people who 'found evidence' for Christianity have also 'found evidence' for Islam, etc, whether you personally did or not?

I'm sorry, but you do seem to be going Da Vinci Code here. Why would the majority of the planet not know about "very specific, measurable prophecies" in the Bible. I don't think what you're terming evidence is what a scientist terms evidence. Full disclosure, I'm a scientist. If you're talking about a phrase in the Bible saying something like "great powerful nations will go to war" being prophecy of WWII or something like that, well I don't know if that's worth my time to discuss quite frankly.

On a final note, you may find this book interesting Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All . I have read the Christian Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and a few other religious books, so I implore you to look at something more critical of what you're terming 'evidence'. To be honest, in the spirit of the Holidays, if you promise to read it, I will literally buy it for you. Paperback, audiobook, whatever you like. That's not a joke.

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

Here is an article detailing several early church fathers and their thoughts on Mary.

>St. Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). (9) By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St. Ambrose, as well as by St. Epiphanius. (10)
>
>As already referred to, the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):
>
>We fly to your patronage,O holy Mother of God,despise not our petitionsin our necessities,but deliver us from all dangers.O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

That prayer is what the Memorare is based on.

Here is an article on early church fathers and why they do ask saints for intercession. They talk about praying with the saints, and that it is good.

Here is an article detailing quotes demonstrating the early church fathers knew celibacy was better, especially for priests!

>St. Epiphanius
>
>Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to (Panarion [A.D. 376]).

Celibacy is better, just like Paul says.

I recommend reading more of the early church fathers to get a better understanding of why their faith and these things are so Catholic. These sites all list citations you can chase down, but maybe you would also be interested in this book and this book?

Aside from the very important Yale course which you found, you'll have to acquire and read books, like Kugel's How to Read the Bible or Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, many of which you can find in local libraries.

There are also a few nice online resources. It's down at the moment, but when it comes back up, check out COJS which has a nice collection of introductory material and beyond for many of the major eras.

The important thing is to continue to learn, grow and get more of a feel for the very vast amount that you need to know if you want to fully understand the context and development of Judaism, Christianity and the world from which they came. If it drives you, intellectually speaking, you'll find that to be very rewarding as you continue to challenge the notions you've held in the past to gain a more nuanced understanding of your own beliefs and what you feel to be true.

IMO, MacCulloch's book is quite a commitment, and, I suppose, it would depend on what time frame you are seeking the history of. If you are looking for an in-depth history of the biblical era, this isn't the book for you - only the first few chapters are devoted to anything pre-Jesus, and the life and times of Jesus get another few dozen pages. Perhaps I'm biased as post-biblical era Christianity doesn't interest me, but I view it as more a book of theology rather than history. Make sure you explore the table of contents to make sure you know what you are getting into.

If you are not seeking something devotional, I recommend these Yale Religious Studies courses every chance I get. They will give you the background you need to tackle more specialized books in areas of interest.

If you are looking for books, I'd recommend Kugel's How to Read the Bible or Coogan's Intro for Old Testament, and Ehrman is the standard academic introduction to New Testament.

"History of Christianity" is a pretty broad topic. If there is something specific that interests you, I'll try to come up with more recommendations.

• The YouVersion Bible App. (www.bible.com)
  I used to use Glo but it kinda sucks and they didn't update or keep up with new features. I can bookmark/highlight passages, create quotes and media, read and participate with my wife and friends in Bible plans not just readings but media built in. It's great and 100% free.
  
  
• I own a St. Joseph's New American Edition of the Bible which I really like
  
• I also own a St. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible which is amazing
  
  

You can look at religion (in my example religious text) from an academic lens (ex:Bart D. Ehrman’s textbook on the New Testament) where using historical fragments of manuscript you can see what portions were likely edited or added later. You factor in writing styles and other variables and evaluate it as a historical text that changes over time (and why those changes occur). This evaluation let’s you see that say some authors may have influenced the writing of other later writers who may have added elements they thought weren’t sufficiently elaborated (ex: resurrection) which then led to later editors adding that to the earlier authors so they all were in agreement. It can actually be really interesting to look at the text in this way.

Within Catholicism, the Jesuits are particularly interested in science / academia which has sometimes created theological debate where they push / publish something at odds with a historically held position. They’ve actually contributed to several areas of science (ex: experimental physics in the 17th century), but someone with more background would need to speak more to this.

Comparing a class I had in primary school (the equivalent of 6th grade) to later classes outside of school in the US there were notable differences. The first emphasized ethics and pulled in history and science as tools to help explain and answer “why is this the case” or “how does this work” questions while the second was more “this is what is true and anything that conflicts must not be true” which threw out a lot of history / science that didn’t agree (ex: evolution).

It’s the difference between allowing scientific knowledge to influence your beliefs so that you see evolution as an even greater and more powerful miracle than a simple creation as is vs. ignoring science and seeing evolution as fiction because it wasn’t in the book.

I'll say my books aren't expressly feminine. They're more about dynamics, relationships, motivations, which have helped to prevent me from going wild with aggressive masculine approaches despite my surroundings and peers. Thank goodness I found these so early :)

I loved Captivating, which is about women from a Christian perspective and it's counterpart called Wild at Heart, which is about men. Neither of them were too overwhelmingly Christian, IMO.

Another book with Christian influences, The Servant is a book about leadership theory that's been very helpful to me stepping into a more nurturing and deferring approach.

Five Dysfunctions of a Team is my very favorite book ever, and it discusses the reasons teams (be it a couple, sports team, friend group, or work group) fail and how to prevent that. Very helpful in learning why vulnerability, an important feminine trait, is so important.

>Unlike your anthropomorphic sky creature.

Straw man, straw man, swimming through the ocean, causing a commotion, because it’s so fallacious...We don’t believe in a dude with a beard in the sky. You realize those depictions are just for ease of viewing, right? Otherwise we would literally not be able to depict the moment of creation, which would make for very unentertaining images.

>And some non spatial/temporal-ether (for lack of a better descriptive term) is an entirely possible, even likely explanation of observable facts.

Mmmmmhmmmm. It’s weird that you guys are all “hurr durr magic sky fairy,” and in order to keep any semblance of self-consistent philosophy you have to resort to untestable universes that spontaneously generated out of nothing. You literally read more like a caricature of Christian beliefs than I do. “It just happened! It popped out of space juice!”

Which one of us is high, again?

Also, note that God is also a perfectly consistent explanation. But sure, magic sky multiverses. Whatever.

>Please read ACTUAL theories and research.

Did you read the research behind the book you linked? I too read pop science. I’m reading an ancient Brian Greene book called Fabric of the Cosmos right now. I would encourage you to look up the critical reviews for the book you linked, as well. Here’s one I found (admittedly on Wikipedia), that I thought was interesting:

>Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

Weird.

>Sorry I won't read your bronze age myths anymore than I have.

Okay? We’ll see who’s right when we die, I guess.

>Equivocate if you wish.

Thank you for your generosity.

>Religion gave us sacrificial goats.

Science gave us Hiroshima and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, but I’m not railing at science, am I?

>Science (an actual, demonstrable understanding of reality) gave us engines, planes, computers...

Catholicism gave us the university system, Western civilization, the Big Bang Theory, tons of advances in modern medicine, a modern legal system, and, what do you know, according to this, modern science. Weird, huh?

>Probability is temporal, so even the most unlikely things are bound to happen in a multiverse, btw...

Who are you to decide how probability does or does not apply in a multiverse that you don’t even know exists?

>if you'll leave me to take advantage of the life I actually know I'll get.

Yes, please, continue leading your meaningful life trolling Catholic forums.

I definitely recommend that you start reading /r/exmormon/ if you aren't already. And here is the recommended reading list for that sub.

I also recommend the following:

• God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens; especially the Audible version, which is read by the author and he has a great reading voice.
  
• Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman; really anything by Dr. Ehrman is great, but this one is a good place to start. He also has an interesting back story that he shares in just about every book.
  
• The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. Finkelstein is one of the top archaeologists living in Israel today, and what he has to say casts a lot of doubt on some of the most important Bible stories. (There's a 90 minute video here, if you would prefer)
  
• A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Where did the idea of the Jewish deity come from, and how did it develop? (There's a 15 minute summary video here if you prefer)
  
  Should be plenty to get you started. :)

It's How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Similar titles include How the Irish Saved Civilization, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. None of them are by the same author, but they're all interesting historical books with similar titles (How some great culture did great things that built what we have now), none the less.

I would love to find similar titles about other countries, cultures, and civilizations. They're always so interesting!

Oh man. Where do I begin?

It started with Edward Feser. Then Aquinas.

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

Start here:

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

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

Then go here:

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

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

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

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

Bible Study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this. This.

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

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

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

I suggest starting with the book The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart (here). It's a book that attempts to show what the major religious traditions traditionally meant by "God." It's extremely different from Mormon God and very eye-opening.

I remain chiefly interested in Christianity. I also have difficulty saying what I believe is "factually true" about Christ's life, but I find myself drawn toward Christ as a person: his wisdom, humility, and love. In short, I continue to desire to be a disciple, even if I operate with less certainty than I used to. Christ, as the archetype of the Good Man, resonates with me. For now, for me, that's enough.

> It actually gave me more respect for the old testament learning about its beginnings because it can now give me more understanding of that time

I'm currently reading another one of Mark S. Smith's books (he wrote the first book on my list), & one of the things that most struck me was how he casually mentioned that the more the Israelites, Hebrews & Jews were overrun & conquered, the bigger, more ferocious & all-encompassing their god[s] became.

The YHWH god went from a character who couldn't find his own ass with his own two hands find Adam when he was hiding in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3: 9), to a god who couldn't help Israel overcome another nation with more advanced Iron Age technology (Judges 1: 19), to being given the Israelites as his "portion" from Elyon aka EL Elyon (the Canaanite patriarchal god over a family of lesser gods - the Elohim) in Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 (but only in a Names of God bible can you see this clearly, since most translations disguise that handing off of power by a Canaanite deity)...

Eventually the Jewish priests wrote & edited their national god into the god of the entire universe, as Smith puts it in his book The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, in chapter 8, page 165, second paragraph:

>First in the face of the great empires and then in exile, Israel stands at the bottom of its political power, and it exalts its deity inversely as ruler of the whole universe, with little regard for the status of the older deities known from the pre-exilic literary record. [bold mine]

Link to that book: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686

Israel was always a backwards, superstitious, trod-upon puny little nation. Its attitude towards progress was abysmal, as all those commands against interacting & marrying with the other nations show - which kept Israel in the Bronze Age long after other nations had moved into the Iron Age.

Israel's isolationism did not serve its people well, at all. I've often mused that, had Israel managed to continue as a (puny) little nation & had kept this attitude intact, the vaunted accomplishments of modern-day Jewish scientists & other Jewish Nobel prize winners would never have happened.

http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

This may be a good analogy for the way JWs have to deal with frequent dissolution of familial relationships once they've exited - imo it was the breaking up of the Hebrews' closed-minded little theocratic system & the subsequent scattering of the Jewish people that led to their later accomplishments.

Thank you.

Now that I'm back home, here are some recommendations. First, I might note that while /u/johnnytoomuch's post has some good links in it, the truth is that for someone new to the whole Orthodoxy thing, that's all going to be hitting the ground too hard and fast.

So here are my recommendations, geared towards somebody totally new to Orthodoxy (I'd say beginner, but we're all beginners, even the likes of St. Theophon the Recluse).

1. Bread and Water, Wine and Oil by Archimandrite Meletios (Webber) is actually a relatively solid introduction to both Orthodox theology, practice, and language. It's also a fairly short read. My copy is well dog-eared. If you're a digital guy, there's also a Kindle version.
   
2. Beginning to Pray by Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh touches on prayer specifically. What's more, this book will be of use to you regardless of your background.
   
3. Check your bookstore for a prayer book. Study the prayers in there. They're actually rather dense. The notes in the one published by Holy Trinity Monastery (ROCOR) in Jordanville, New York, commonly just called the Jordanville Prayerbook, has some excellent note sections, though I would not attempt that full prayer rule without some advising from a spiritual father, particularly for someone new. That book also contains the text of the Divine Liturgy and a few other services, so you can use it to follow along (except for the hymns that are prescribed by the day or week). That said, it does have a few glaring typos in the prayers themselves--they work on revising it regularly, though.
   
4. If you really want to get in to how the Divine Liturgy (and the rest of the services) are put together, get yourself a copy of the horologion. This one is also by Holy Trinity Monastery, and is in common use at many English speaking Orthodox parishes in North America. I warn you, though: that rabbit hole is very deep. There are 13 different books we pull from*.
   
   I'd also ask the priest what book he uses for his inquirers class.
   
   * For a layman, the horologion and psalter (if you have a Bible, you have the psalter) are the core of it. You do not need and should probably not purchase your own copy of the Menaion (the books that give the hymns for feasts and saints) or the Ochtoechos (the books that give the hymns for the tone of the week). I'm also not mentioning the Triodion (the book of Lent) or Pentecostarion (the book of Pascha). The other 7 books are generally clergy books or books for specific occasions.

My favorites Scripture Scholars are:

1. Brant Pitre
   
2. Scott Hahn
   
3. John Bergsma
   
   ​
   
   They all have Bible Studies in specific topics (Eucharist, Priesthood, Covenants, specific Books) or more general. For Old Testament, I'd check out Brant Pitre and John Bergsma's somewhat recently released A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament. They have a New Testament one coming, but not sure on the date. But you do have Scott Hahn's Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament to cover your bases there! You can also look into Navarre Study Bibles, it's best to get them used on sites like Ebay or Amazon as they're pricey but worth it in commentary. Brant Pitre and John Bergsma has a lot of their work available at Catholic Productions. Scott Hahn has the St. Paul Center, which even has some online study course available free like The Lamb's Supper: The Bible and the Mass.

The New Testament manuscript tradition the KJV was based off of is from the same manuscript tradition that Eastern Orthodox New Testaments have been based off of, which is, as far as I've seen, one of the big reasons why the Eastern Orthodox prefer the KJV and the NKJV for English translations.

It's just easy to fall into the trap of dismissing the KJV altogether because of the weird way some modern North American Protestants worship the translation, along with hearing that the KJV supposedly is a bad translation (it's not, nor are its manuscripts necessarily worse). The way KJV-onlyists regard it is obviously absurd, but it doesn't change the fact that the KJV is a solid and beautiful translation that does deserve our continuing respect.

That being said, the KJV is a very archaic translation for our times, and it's not something that anyone should recommend for an initial read or for usage as a "main" bible. If you want to read a respectable translation that is used by both the Catholics and the Orthodox, then I would recommend to you the [NOAB RSV] (https://www.amazon.ca/Annotated-Apocrypha-Revised-Standard-Expanded/dp/0195283481) or the RSV-CE. The RSV-2CE is also an option, and I have a personal copy myself, but it has some dodgy typesetting errors among other things, and I wouldn't wholly recommend it as it is now. I would recommend the RSV-CE over the RSV-2CE. I currently use the NOAB RSV as my main Bible. The NOAB RSV includes the Eastern Deuterocanonical texts, if you are interested in them. The only main flaw of the NOAB RSV for me is that it omits certain passages that are regarded by modern scholars as being late additions into the text, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery in John, which I think was a mistake by the RSV editors. It should have been kept in with footnotes noting its contested nature.

Well, it would depend on what you feel your soul is looking for right now.

You say you're agnostic, there are books for people who want to get a sense of the existence of God, like Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth. Peter Kreeft, the author of the book, has a handy section on his website going over various perspectives on the verification of God's existence.

There are books for people who want to get to know Catholic faith a little better before committing, like Waking Up Catholic: A Guide to Catholic Beliefs for Converts, Reverts, and Anyone Becoming Catholic.

There are books for people who want to get to know the Catholic faith more in depth, and have some hurdles to overcome, particularly from the protestant objections, like Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism, from an anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister whose battle against the faith pulled him into it.

There are people who come to the Church by reading on the lives of saints, others by reading on the history of the church and how it built western civilization, and others just by reading the news. It's not just a purely intelectual exercise, this is a spiritual quest and as such you have to give your soul what it yearns for.

Thanks for mentioning us pre-internet pioneers of exmo-ness.

I left in late 1995. Made the mistake of reading Richard S. Van Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy: A History"

I felt so guilty for reading that book. But, I just couldn't put it down. It was the first time I felt like someone was giving me a real picture of Joseph Smith the man, not the myth. Decided I needed to balance out what I was getting in Van Wagoner's book with something more "church approved." Went to Deseret Book. Asked the girl working if they had anything on polygamy. She said she thought they had one book- they did. It was the book I was already reading.

That was the moment I took the red pill. There was no turning back and the floodgates were opened. I then read:

• No Man Knows My History
  
• Quest For The Gold Plates
  
• By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus
  
• Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders
  
• Secret Ceremonies
  
• Where Does It Say That?
  
  And then I started checking out copies of Sunstone and Dialogue.
  
  I started checking out some of the articles at Utah Lighthouse Ministries and made one trip to their book store, but I was already becoming an atheist and I didn't really like how they weren't just trying to debunk Mormonism but also trying to sell born again xianity.
  
  By November of 1996 I was already attending a Unitarian Universalist congregation and also pretty much an athiest at that point.
  
  When stuff like MormonThink came along, I was already pretty much post-Mormon. And, when I discovered r/exmormon, I was suddenly surprised at how much I liked watching what was happening here.
  
  I'm always surprised at the announcements people make about being done with this place. But, then I found it when I was already over all the emotional rage at having been deceived. I think I just like watching the train wreck at this point. People's posts here really give me the sense that Mormonism is imploding at a rate faster than this stodgy institution is prepared to deal with- makes me happy.

>but I feel like I can't make an intellectually honest assent to the faith until I can tell the full story of how I got to Orthodoxy.

Yeah, this is where you're going wrong. Craft the narrative later -- there is work to be done.

Pick up Beginning to Pray by (Metropolitan) Anthony Bloom. The first chapter should be a good punch in the gut.

You're as far as you need to go right now intellectually. But this isn't a thought experiment. You won't have any intellectual certitude about our risen Lord until you meet Him.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to save your soul and win eternal life, arise from your lethargy, make the sign of the Cross and say:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Faith comes not through pondering but through action. Not words and speculation but experience teaches us what God is. To let in fresh air we have to open a window; to get tanned we must go out into the sunshine. Achieving faith is no different; we never reach a goal by just sitting in comfort and waiting, say the holy Fathers. Let the Prodigal Son be our example. He "arose and came" (Luke 15:20)

-Way of the Ascetics

You've given me a few things to research and ponder, so thank you!

For now, I'll just respond to your final questions:

> What is "agnostic"?

I would think that being agnostic on a particular question is simply neither confirming nor denying its validity. e.g. I can neither confirm nor deny the miracle claims of the Quran and Book of Mormon (along with many of the biblical miracles).

> how do you distinguish between an a priori presumption vs a conclusion?

An a priori presumption would be a decision about findings which restricts (or, perhaps, affirms) validity of certain hypotheses, despite the evidence. e.g. a Fundamentalist may have the a priori presumption that biblical miracles actually happened in history, and any evidence contrary to that assumption will be problematic to the fundamentalist. On the flip side, a secular materialist exegete may have the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen in history, and thus any evidence to the contrary will be problematic. I don't think either of these presumptions are healthy for an unbiased view.

That said, the study of history may not be able to positively confirm a miracle hypothesis, due to the necessary constraints of such research. But there has been some work done which may suggest that historical research can positively corroborate miracle claims (e.g. Craig Keener's work). I wouldn't want to over step my competency, so I'll have to remain agnostic on that point.

Its my view that the historian must work under the constraints they're given: i.e. if a miracle did happen in history, they may not necessarily be able to positively affirm that truth. If it did not, then they can deny it's validity if they have sufficient evidence. If they are unable to deny the historicity of a miracle claim with sufficient evidence, then they ought to remain agnostic (simply allowing the validity of the miracle to remain on the conceptual table with other possible hypotheses), rather than denying its validity because of a priori presuppositions.

The book that changed my life and thought processes the most was and is Wild at Heart by John Eldredge.

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Revised-Updated-Discovering/dp/1400200393/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539659903&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=wild+at+heart+john+eldredge&dpPl=1&dpID=41Jvn2qswGL&ref=plSrch

I don’t want to shoot the “God gun” at you guys, but it’s the best I’ve got. Even if only a portion of what Eldredge is proposing is true or correct, it’s revolutionary in how you process your life and the events in it, and what’s going on in this world.

The other book is Rangers in the Gap: Act with Courage, Never Surrender by Richard Drebert. This is about Dave Eubank (former Ranger and SF officer) and his Free Burma Rangers.

https://www.amazon.com/Rangers-Gap-Courage-Never-Surrender/dp/1938478312

>I would like to respond, but I am not sure I follow your logic. I believe now you are referring to the dependability of primary sources, and how the individuals who created those sources employed speculation

I'm glad that's cleared up.

Yes, that's what I was referring to since my original comment. In my original response to you I believed you were responding to the top comment.

If we recognize that there's subjectivity within the sources, I would argue that it's inherently speculation when analyzing them. While not pure speculation, I don't believe it's accurate to say that there's firm evidence to support all analysis of the subjectivity within records. And analyzing the subjectivity is part of historical analysis, is it not?

edit: And I do recognize the importance of noting when and where the historian feels they have crossed the gray area from "firm" to "not quite firm" evidence. For example, in Zealot by Reza Aslan, while it's interpretation - I would argue it's all firm evidence, with little/no speculation. However, I do believe that part of historical analysis is speculation to an extent - and that's not entirely bad.

I dislike the ESV Study Bible - it obscures or dismisses the scholarly consensus on many books, which is academically dishonest.

I highly recommend the Access Bible. Its notes represent mainstream biblical scholarship. It uses the NRSV, which is a cousin of the ESV and is actually easier to read in my opinion (you can compare them on BibleGateway.com - the NRSV and the ESV are both revisions of the RSV.)

I would also recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible.. It's a little more technical and meaty than the Access Bible. It also uses the NRSV. More importantly, its notes are excellent and represent mainstream biblical scholarship. It comes in an older edition (with shorter, more conservative notes) using the RSV (which is the basis for the ESV and very similar to it.)

Another study Bible I like is the Oxford Study Bible. This uses the REB (Revised English Bible) - this is a British translation that is not related to the RSV/NRSV/ESV family. It's a fresh, creative and easy to read translation that nicely complements the formal translations.

Finally, there is the Norton Critical Edition of the English Bible, KJV. It's very unique for a study Bible, because it focuses on how the KJV influenced English literature. Although the KJV is hard to read, the notes clarify some of the obscure English language.

So... I guess the lesson is that there are a lot of choices out there. But since you're a beginner, I'd highly recommend the Access Bible before you explore the other stuff.