Ah, you are correct. When I was typing earlier, I misread what you had said, and simply did a ctrl+f for what I thought you had said in the document.

Nonetheless, the point remains the same: the local ordinary (i.e. Bishop) cannot approve any instrument he deems for the celebration of the Most Holy Mass. That is exactly what Musicam Sacram is saying:

>63.) In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

But what is also being ignored is the hermeneutic of continuity. Where in Sacred Tradition or the original deposit of faith do we read that we can add whatever instruments we desire to the Mass? Where in the hermeneutic of continuity do we see the allowance of secular/protestant music in the Catholic Liturgy? Where in the original deposit of faith do we see the Church formulating its Liturgy around heretical, false worldviews?

The primary problem is that the majority of praise and worship music is not Catholic and it is not liturgical.

It is disappointing that the Instruction on our Congregational Documents are not enough for you, and you must ask for references to Benedict XVI or Bl. JPII for further clarification. But since you asked, Benedict has said the following, taken from The Letter of Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, May 2011:

>The Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II in particular wished to reaffirm the aim of sacred music in the light of the conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium: in other words: “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful” (n. 112), as well as the fundamental criteria of tradition; I limit myself to recalling: the sense of prayer, of dignity and of beauty; full adherence to the texts and to the liturgical gestures; the involvement of the assembly, hence a legitimate adaptation to the local culture while preserving at the same time the universality of the language; the primacy of Gregorian chant as a supreme model of sacred music and the wise use of other modes of expression that are part of the Church’s historical and liturgical patrimony, especially, but not only polyphony; the importance of the schola cantorum, particularly in cathedral churches. Today too these are important criteria which should be taken into careful consideration.

Notice, though, he mentions specifically the use of the Church's traditional understanding of Sacred Music in Mass and he commends the use of Chant, Polyphony, and the Schola Cantorum. But he purposefully omits the modern use of guitars and drums...hmm...

>Sometimes, in fact, these elements that are found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, such as, precisely, the value of the great ecclesial patrimony of sacred music or the universality that is characteristic of Gregorian chant, have been held to express a concept which corresponds with a past that needs to be superseded and set aside because it is supposed to limit the freedom and creativity of the individual and of communities. Yet we must always ask ourselves anew: who or what is the authentic subject of the liturgy? The answer is simple: the Church. It is not the individual person or group which is celebrating the liturgy, but is first and foremost God’s action through the Church which has her own history, her rich tradition and her creativity.

So what did JPII say on the subject? He echoed the words of Pius X in Tra le Sollecitudini from 1903 in his Chirograph of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio "Tra Le Sollecitudini" on Sacred Music in 2003.

>With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple."

But this still may be too ambiguous for the less-educated faithful. So I will reference an earlier document our Holy Father wrote while he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Spirit of the Liturgy.

>In the West, in the form of Gregorian chant, the inherited tradition of psalm-singing was developed to a new sublimity and purity, which set a permanent standard for sacred music, music for the liturgy of the Church. Polyphony developed in the late Middle Ages, and then instruments came back into divine worship—quite rightly, too, because, as we have seen, the Church not only continues the synagogue, but also takes up, in the light of Christ’s Pasch, the reality represented by the Temple. Two new factors are thus at work in Church music. Artistic freedom increasingly asserts its rights, even in the liturgy. Church music and secular music are now each influenced by the other. This is particularly clear in the case of the so-called “parody Masses”, in which the text of the Mass was set to a theme or melody that came from secular music, with the result that anyone hearing it might think he was listening to the latest “hit”. It is clear that these opportunities for artistic creativity and the adoption of secular tunes brought dan­ger with them. Music was no longer developing out of prayer, but, with the new demand for artistic autonomy, was now heading away from the liturgy; it was becoming an end in itself, opening the door to new, very different. ways of feeling and of experiencing the world. Music was alienating the liturgy from its true nature. At this point the Council of Trent intervened in the culture war that had broken out. It was made a norm that liturgical music should be at the service of the Word; the use of instruments was substantially reduced; and the difference between secular and sacred music was clearly affirmed. [The Spirit of the Liturgy (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), pp. 146-47]

>Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Lo­gos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)… [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 151]

>On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober ine­briation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments. [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p 148]

All of this seems pretty clear to me...

But why has JPII or BXVI not condemned what happens at WYD? To come with an outright condemnation would cause an uproar. The Church moves slowly in these matters and waits for Her priests and bishops to prepare the faithful for worshiping in Spirit and in Truth. Take, for example, how long it has taken for the English-speaking members of the Church to finally receive an accurate translation of our Mass. One wonders how on earth it could be so difficult to take over forty years to translate Latin to English...

Wall of text incoming!!!!

OP, towerpill, greetings. If you intend to support your post in debate/discussion, and if you haven't already, message the mods and request to be put on the approved submitter list. Your negative Karma score may limit your participation otherwise.

> * 1) God gives us free will because He chooses to have a relationship with us.

Let's start with just this first premise shall we? The usual general questions....

• Which God? Ok, I'll answer that one for you. The God under discussion is one of the various Christian versions of יהוה/YHWH/Yahweh. Sine OP did not present a specific list of attributes and claims of intervention/actualization associated with this God, the standard Christian claims apply.
  
  
• Free will. OP, what is free will to you in the context of this submission? However, this premise makes the claim that "free will" exists.
  
  
• Relationship: What do you mean by relationship? Like a sheep to the shepherd? Where the shepherd requires, and enforces obedience of the animals in going where directed or else the sheep may suffer; and where the shepherd uses the sheep for resources (e.g., milk, fur, and skin), and sometimes eats the sheep?
  
  
• OP speaks for YHWH. Interesting. OP, do you always speak for God? :) Or are there references/citations that you can provide to bad up the claim that "YHWH chooses to have a relationship with us [humans]"? If so, please provide said references to back up your claims.
  
  Ok, now for the implicit and explicit claims contained just within point/premise 1:
  
  
• God (YHWH) exists
  
  The existence of this God is just asserted without any supporting basis, argument, evidence, or knowledge - and since this is /r/DebateAnAtheist, and not /r/truechristian, /r/cataocombs, or /r/ReasonableFaith, Presuppositionalism is not accepted - and what do we say about the fallacy of presuppositionalism OP?
  
  Calling upon an argument from authority, William Lane Craig, the Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):
  
  "...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."
  
  Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233
  
  Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....
  
  “Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)
  
  Until OP, towerpill, can make a credible burden of proof to support that this God exists? If not, or you say you can but then do not do so, then the first point/premise fails catastrophically, and in doing so, renders the entire post - from the topic statement/question to the end of the submission statement - non-coherent resulting in a catastrophic failure of all points/conclusions OP is attempting to make.
  
  And thus ends the debate/discussion - on the first point/premise that OP makes. :( Well that's boring. Maybe OP can save the argument. OP, below the double line at the end of my comment is a generic challenge to support the existence of the necessary God of your argument/submission. If you can show, against refutation, that there is credible support or justification to accept the existence of the Christian version of the God YHWH, then we can continue debating/discussion.
  
  However, since OP will, of course, be capable of fully supporting the existence of YHWH, and will meet the challenge presented - for the sake of argument, let's play pretend and imagine that YHWH actually and credibly exists.
  
  
• Human free will is sourced from the God YHWH
  
  Ignoring for now what OP means by "free will" - let's examine this claim.
  
  YHWH is assigned the attributes of being the necessary Creator God of, well, everything, of all of existence (let's ignore the special pleading issue of 'what created YHWH?'), and also of having the attribute of omniscience (and other stuff, but these two claimed attributes will do for now).
  
  Which form of omniscience is being referenced when one says "omniscient"? The type of omniscience plays into support for some definition of "free will" or "free agency."
  
  For example; some external omniscience types:
  
  
• Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard espouses this position.
  
• Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position.
  
• Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position.
  
• Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they "will" obtain or that they "will not" obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they "might and might not" obtain. Greg Boyd espouses this position.
  
• Inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
  
• Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
  
  Personally, I posit that the external application of omniscience is not-relevant. Rather, in regard to the free will vs. omniscience argument, the attribute of internal omniscience is the relevant attribute.
  
  Internal omniscience can be defined as: the God Entity has, at a minimum, true or perfect, and intentful, knowledge of the results or actualizations of all cognition's by the Entity. That is, the Entity knows, to a level of complete certainty, any event/effect/causation/interaction/whatever, the actual actualization that results from purposeful cognition by the God.
  
  In other words, God's willful creation is exactly as God cognitively intended.
  
  Additionally, internal omniscience has hierarchical priority (is a necessary logical truth) over claims/arguments of external omniscience (a contingent logical truth).
  
  Ignoring the effect of this internal omniscience on the concept/question of "Does this postulated God have free will?" - the combination of internal omniscience and the purposeful cognition of the creation of everything (as The Creator God) results in a wholly hard deterministic universe, or total and full predestination; free will is an illusion and all of existence (sans God - the issue how this God came to exist is outside this discussion area) is a script to be played out without variation (including your question and my response).
  
  So, with a true omniscient Creator God, you, OP, me and everyone else is a mere puppet against the emotional needs/wants/desires of this God. Dance puppet! Dance!
  
  And with this God-type, there is no free will except illusionary - which is to say, with the attributes assigned to this God, free will or free agency is refuted/negated. And the first point/premise again fails catastrophically.
  
  
• The God YHWH has the capability to make a "choice" (i.e., "He [YHWH] chooses..") - YHWH has free will of some kind.
  
  OP, can you support this claim? And in your supporting argument that YHWH has "free will," can you also provide support to show why YHWH, a God that is claimed to be sufficient onto YHWH itself and without needs/wants/desires, would make a choice? or choose one actualization over another?
  
  Until support is provides, the claim "He [YHWH] chooses..." is unsupported and rejected for lack of any, let alone credible, support.
  
  Finally,
  
  
• The God YHWH has a "relationship with us [humans]"
  
  And what type of "relationship" are you referring? Many Christians claims that YHWH has a loving relationship with YHWH's adherents (and where the cherry-picked canon scripture supports that the relationship YHWH has with non-adherents can be described as "You are either with YHWH, or you are fucked.").
  
  If this typical claim of Christians (the relationship with God is based upon love) is accepted, you if you mean "love" via inclusion of pain and suffering, then I concur the Bible supports a loving God.
  
  Many Christians claim a position that they have a relationship with Jesus (fully human/fully Yahweh), and with Yahweh (and some with the Holy Spirit). "Love" and "glorification" are examples of emotions/actions within a relationship. But what of the "loving" relationship of adherents with Yahweh and/or Jesus?
  
  [Character Limit. To Be Continued.]

Coming as a reformed guy, the presuppositional approach is the school of thought most of us come from. The books in this tradition worth reading would be:

Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til

He was the founder of the movement and this is an intro to his ideas. He was a philosopher and English wasn't his first language, so it might be a but dense in a few places. But it's worth the read.

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

Bahnsen was one of Van Til's best students and probably one of the best debaters of that method til his tragic death at 45. This is a really good intro to the theory and practice as he applies the method to popular questions including the problem of faith, miracles, and knowing the supernatural.

Apologetics to the Glory of God and Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Van Til's other best student who is also considered his best living expositor and friendliest critic. Apologetics to the Glory of God (AGG) is his attempt at making the method user friendly. He deals with evil, the existence of God and the reliability of the gospel and he even has a funny sample dialogue at the end showing how the method could be applied in real life. His other book, is the first in his Theology of Lordship Series covering in depth various topics. His Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is a theology of epistemology. That is, he looks at the Bible and asks, "What does it mean to "know" God?" TONS of Scripture. A brilliant book with great application at the end, especially in terms of apologetics.

The Francis A Schaeffer Trilogy by Francis Schaeffer

One of Van Til's most famous students (The only one to ever be on the cover of Time Magazine), he was a very influential voice in evangelicalism in the 60's and 70's. Van Til never felt Francis truly "got" his method, but the influence of Van Til on his work is pretty evident. Francis wrote these three books in order to be read together and they were developed as a result of his work in Europe working with college kids at his home called L'Abri They cover cultural trends in Europe and the US and why they were happening. He saw that the idea of truth was in decay and only God could truly be the anchor to hold society together. Broad brush strokes indeed, but philosopher Richard Taylor would make a very similar (but more detailed) case in his book A Secular Age. They aren't apologetics books (I would almost say prophetic as he saw many of our current cultural trends years before they happened), but they do have his approach to apologetics and it is one that has influenced many current evangelicals. To be honest, any of his many books would be worth your time. His book and documentary How Then Shall We Live, while a bit dated, are both worth your time. They both look at the history of art and what it tells us about mankind. Here's a clip from the documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdLejdyNpik

Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt

One of Frame's students who took the method and wrote this book for High School/College age students. Great intro to the method. Lot's of scripture.

Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology and Covenantal Apologetics by Scott Oliphint

He is currently teaching in Van Til's old position and has written a lot on the subject. The first book is just what it sounds like, it's a look at the role of reason in apologetics. The second book comes out next month and it is his explanation of the presuppositional method of apologetics. It's a highly anticipated book.

The Divine Challenge: On Matter Mind Math and Meaning by John Byl

A physicist, he uses the presup. approach while looking at the materialistic worldview. He deconstructs the view and shows that things like mind matter math and meaning can only make sense in a Christian worldview.

Religion, Reason, and Revelation by Gordon Clark

Clark was a one time friend of Van Til and later would become his rival-their students to this day keep the rivalry going! This is his own kind of presuppositionalism and well worth your time. His other works like The Christian View of Men and Things are a great intro to his approach.

Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash

A student of Clark's, he wrote this intro to philosophy of Religion with some great thoughts on worldviews.

A World of Difference by Kenneth Samples

A student of Nash's who looks at different tests of world views and show show Christianity can deal with all of them.

Articles

Van Til Info is run by Christian philosopher James Anderson and it has tons of articles from the presupp approach
http://www.vantil.info/bysubject.html

Monergism
Links to various writers and on the pressuppisitional method.
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Apologetics/

>To me the Jews not eating pork or meat or touching money on the sabbath did not really translate to simple hand washing after touching a sick person or before eating but maybe they did so it's a good argument.

This was hardly the extent of it! They went much farther than we do today, with efforts that would seem extreme, in order to avoid even beaing near uncleanliness. They made women who were on their periods live outside the city for the duration of their menses + a few days, lepers couldn't be touched or gotten close to, they used separate hands for toilet dealings and eating, washed their hands fastidiously before and after eating, and took full baths at least weekly! Additionally, if you so much went near a building that had a dead body in it, you were unclean for a week! Even today traditional Judaism has some pretty strict handwashing laws.

>I'll have to revisit GENESYS as it's been a while but clearly woman was not made from a man's rib and man was not made from dirt like pottery. The person who was divinely inspired to write that in my view was not inspired enough to convey truth as to how we came about. But I'll let it slide.

There are types of truth, and scientific truth is certainly one of these. However, it's not the only kind of truth. Philosophy, for example, contains truths that cannot be discovered through the scientific method. Theological truth is another kind of truth. So most Catholics would hold that the story of Eve from Adam's rib holds theological truth, if not scientific truth. The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Just as you wouldn't use the rules of grammar to learn about biology, it's silly to use the laws of biology to learn about theology.

>When I was in the military we had one hour of sleep per day in basic training. After four days many people including myself started having hallucinations. One friend from church saw all the leaves glowing at night and felt it was a spiritual experience. But we had many dumb hallucinations like seeing a dog in the tent that wasn't there and seeing midget soldiers marching. That combined with learning about how the eye and visual software in our brain works helped me realize a few things. We can't always trust what we see or even what we hear or even what we feel (like the sensation of movement in a car wash). What's more likely? My friend had a spiritual experience or just another hallucination like several of us had? So what's more likely? That Paul heard the voice of god or had a hallucination in the desert?

Indeed. Hallucinations are very different from genuine spiritual experience. I can't say I've ever had the latter. Having also undergone some serious sleep deprivation, I have had hallucinations, though, and I can see how it would be easy for undiscerning folks to conflate the two. However, we also don't discount the possibility of something being both at once. Like with scientific and theological truth, a given pattern of neurology can be either/or, or both/and. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not advocating for "praying your depression away" or anything like that! I have a degree in psychology, and before I decided to become a housewife to my awesome kiddos, I really wanted to continue my study into neuropathology and psychological disorders and their mechanisms.

>I've come to learn of many charlatans that pretend to heal people (e.g. Benny Hinn filled up a stadium where I lived). So what's more likely? That a man two thousand years ago healed the blind or that people were deceived and stories were told and miscommunication and exaggerations were propagated as people passed these stories down. The first account of Jesus in writing is from 70 years after they happened!!

I've read an excellent book on this topic called The Case for the Resurrection. My question back to you, then, is this: Given that this lie was likely to get people captured, tortured, and literally devoured by lions for profit, why would the original Gospel authors persist in it after watching so many people get martyred? I mean, if I saw someone claim to be God and heal the blind, and I knew I was likely to get shot for mentioning it, I'd have to have a damned good reason to continue telling people that He's right. Either the authors were collectively uniquely masochistic, were all incredibly stupid, or there was a good reason for them to, with one exception, march to their death proclaiming a unified truth for hundreds of years.

>And if ou see Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Jonah in the big fish, a talking snake and all these stories as not literally something that happened (because it's impossible) then why stop there? A man dying for three days and resurrecting is even more impossible.
So to me I had to at some point stop and say to myself what do I REALLY believe? I want to know the TRUTH no matter what it is. Are muslims right? Budhists? Hindus? Or maybe there is no God at all.

The evidence for the Shroud of Turin is remarkable. Italy's ENEA ( National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, not in any way a Catholic institution) has just a couple of months ago calculated the amount of energy it would take to reproduce the image on the Shroud: 34 trillion watts, triple the entire world's current energy output. {link](http://www.lastampa.it/2011/12/12/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-jdiKKEyJ0uDsE4XpV13TcK/pagina.html) Note that while Vatican Insider is obviously a Catholic source, the ENEA, who conducted the study, are a scientific organization devoted to studying developments in energy efficiency and high-tech production processes.

However, the Shroud isn't the point. (However, a piece of linen that corresponds with all known data about the Resurrection and would take 34 trillion watts of energy over an incredibly short span of time certainly corroborates the Resurrection.) The point is the atheist's baseline assumption of all things can be explained with naturalistic, scientific processes.

And to this, I ask, why? What makes you think that everything in this universe can be explained with the scientific method? I, along with innumerable Christian scientists (As opposed to Christian Scientists) have no doubt that scientific rigour has brought great things to the world. But is it the only means of knowledge, and if so, on what do you base that assumption? Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled by natural processes.

Thank you so much for engaging in an intelligent, cordial, and respectful manner. You're a much kinder atheist than I ever was! I respectfully invite you to look again. As I mentioned earlier The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is a excellent little book that goes through all possible explanations (apostles hallucinating, apostles are liars, etc) and looks at the evidence. It's not a preachy book, but tries to use the same means we look at for evidence of other historical events and applies it to all the available sources regarding the historical Jesus (many of which were written by people who were not Christian, and had good reason to disprove Jesus' divinity).

Again, thanks for the discussion. I'll flag you as a friend just in case we ever come across one another again on this little Reddit web. It's been a pleasure.

Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.

The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.

In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:

>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.

That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.

In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.

In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.

What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.

In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.

Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.

Other good "intro" level books:

• Reformed: What It Means, Why It Matters by Bob DeMoor. This is more of a booklet that a full book. It'd be a great option for a newcomers class at church.
  
  
• Deep Down Faith by Cornelius Plantinga. This one is a devotional aimed at young adults, but an excellent explanation of Reformed Faith.
  
  
• Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. This is the book that made me a Calvinist. Best explanation and defense of TULIP out there. Sproul's The Holiness of God is anothe excellent choice, as are all of his books.
  
  
• Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw. Another book focused on TULIP. This one's goal is to show how the doctrines of Grace affect the way we live out our lives and correcting common misunderstandings about Calvinism.
  
  
  Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
  
  
• Reformed Theology by Michael Allen. If you want a book that covers the breadth of Reformed Theology at a deep level than Smith or DeMoor, this is for you (think intro college level).
  
  
• Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. This book is a clarion call: “to be Reformed means to go deeper into true catholicity, not to move away from catholicity.” A must read.
  
  
• Reformed Dogmatics (Abridged) by Herman Bavink. My appreciation for Bavink grows every time I read him. This abridged version is much cheaper and more accessible than the full four volume edition.
  
  
• Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. This one needs no explanation. Get this one if you want to splurge for a nice reference edition, the Beveridge Translation is available for much less (and free online).
  

>I'm open to both the idea that god exists and that the bible is true. I am open to it.
But there is not sufficient evidence, and so I do not believe either of those two things.

I understand this completely, trust me. I was raised in a secular household and was an atheist most of my life (most of my comments on reddit are discussing religion so I feel like I mention this in every comment, haha).

I think the biggest thing for me is defining sufficient evidence. It's not a question that lends itself to unquestionable, empirical evidence. On top of that, some answers to the question require not just acknowledging the answer but living it (religious piety and devotion). It's not an easy problem to solve (if it can be solved at all).


 

>I've done just that, and now I am an atheist.

One thing I've realized about atheism is that it's pretty easy to align with, since it doesn't make any bold claims. I'm not saying belief systems need to make bold claims to be valid - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying atheism basically says "We know how works, and we don't know how works, so we'll keep trying to figure it out and see where it goes." There's nothing wrong with that (and in no way should we ever discourage research and the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of religious affiliation).

But, at the same time, I think that when atheists are looking at the questions that religion tries to answer, the evidence used isn't right for the problem. Knowing how the universe works doesn't contrast or disprove a designer of the universe, or a metaphysical realm. The fact that the universe exists means that a metaphysical realm is very likely - it just might be "empty" nothingness. An atheist looks at scientific discoveries as a replacement for god(s), but a religious person looks at these discoveries as an explanation of how god(s) did it. My point is that the truth that is resonating for atheists (or at least most of it) also resonates for religious folks, including Christians. We just have our own spiritual, metaphysical aspect in the picture as well.


 

>Who says I need to get far? Who says I haven't? And what do you mean by getting far?

When I say "getting far" I just mean exploring religion beyond lightly reading the texts while constantly fighting rolling your eyes. I meant actually giving them a chance, even if you end up deciding they're all nonsense. With a question like this, "getting far" is extremely subjective and all I can do is give you my own take on it.


 

>Let's say we didn't know what 2+2 evaluated to. If one religion gave the answer 72, another 42, another 620, is that in any way valid? No, just because we might not have a naturalistic answer to some questions doesn't mean that religion is valid.

I think understand what you're saying, but math isn't necessarily good example. Math is a constructed language to describe its real physical counterparts. We defined what "2" is and have thus defined what "4" is, in the sense that it is "2 + 2" or "1 + 1 + 1 + 1." The system very accurately describes the mathematical components of the universe, but the actual language of math is arbitrary. It is metaphysical in a sense, but it is mapped to a physical reality.

In the case of religion, the physical mapping is literally the universe. At least, it is in a way (and it depends on which religion you're talking about). Religion doesn't try to provide a language to discuss an existing system inside of the universe, it tries to explain the universe itself and the context of humanity and life within it. On the other hand, in a similar way to math - it explains self-aware humans as having souls and our gifts that put us above other animals as gifts from God. We are self-aware with intelligence and morality either way, regardless of whether or not you view them as God-given or as a result of pure natural evolution. In the case of religion, though, these aren't necessarily just arbitrary man-made ideas to explain physical realities. There is a potential that they are the system. Does that make sense? This particular answer was a little stream-of-consciousness-esque.


 

> Could you provide a demonstration? I do not believe this to be the case.

This is an answer that has been written as books for a reason - it's long. I have a blog and am planning on writing a page on this eventually, but in the meantime I don't want to look like I'm dodging your question. So here's something I wrote in another comment:

>Here are some of the examples of questions that, when I approached them with an open mind to the possibility (however small it was to me at the time) of a supernatural or external being, they made sense in that context.

>* Why are we so far above animals in terms of intelligence and self-awareness?

• Why did life appear in the first place? The amount of chance chemical combinations required for an amino acid alone is pretty impressive. I understand given an arbitrarily long amount of time it's possible. It just doesn't give a stronger (or weaker) answer than religion, to me. I'm not denying evolution, I'm just skeptical about it happening on its own from the point of no life to life.
  
• Why do we have altruistic tendencies and a moral system? We know what we should do even if nobody is actually doing that. This awareness is another thing that separates us from other animals.
  
• How is the universe such a fine-tuned system containing (IMO) irreducible complexity? The fact that there are observable and repeatable laws that govern the universe is pretty impressive. That it would happen by chance seems implausible to me.
  If there is a Creator, what kind of Creator would that be based on observing the universe that it created? This question is more for addressing current world religions or attempting to connect (or recognize the inability to connect) to a Creator. I think the universe has elements that point to design, and I think the Creator would need to be a personal God based on how human beings (and other social animals to an extent) interact and function psychologically.
  
  If you're interested in how I came to faith through reasoning it out, I highly suggest [The Reason for God](https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493?ie=UTF8&Version=1&entries*=0) by Timothy Keller. Another great book that helped me and that also discusses the perception of science and faith being at war is The Language of God* by Francis Collins. He's the leader of the Human Genome Project and has some good input for questions like Christianity and evolution.
  
  
   
  
  One final thing I feel the need to say is that you're not going to wake up one morning and be 100% sure of God's existence, or any god's existence. It's called a "walk of faith" for a reason, and it's a complex answer to a very complex question. But just because it's not "easy" to believe doesn't mean it directly contradicts scientific evidence or all forms of logic, it's just that once you honestly don't believe in the supernatural it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that particular aspect doesn't reflect the validity of the supernatural answers, it's a result of our limited perception confined to the physical universe.
  
  Regardless of what you land on or if you even take any of this to heart, I wish you the best of luck with this journey (or, if you don't budge, I wish you luck with your life as it already is). :) If you want to talk to me more about it, you're welcome to do it via commenting or personal message if you'd prefer.
  

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

You might be familiar with some of this already, but I'm going to explain it as though you have no familiarity with this subject.

Philosophy of religion explores topics such as the existence of God, concepts of God, religious language, religious belief, miracles, and so on. Philosophyofreligion.info presents a good primer for the subject.

It seems like your primary interest is in the existence of God. Natural theology, although the approach of doing theology without the assistance of special, divine revelation, in philosophical circles is basically synonymous with arguments for the existence of God. Natural atheological arguments, as some have put it (i.e. Plantinga), are arguments for atheism.

Popular arguments for the existence of God would be the various cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments. There's almost too many of them to keep track. Popular arguments against the existence of God would be the various kinds of the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and attacks on the coherence of theism.

"The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" is perhaps the best single resource on arguments for and against the existence of God, although it is highly advanced. "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" is also a very solid resource. "The Existence of God" by Swinburne is classic, as is his "Coherence of Theism." Again, all of those are fairly advanced. Swinburne has a shorter, more popular level version of "The Existence of God" titled "Is There a God?" Stephen Davis also has a similar book titled "God, Reason and Theistic Proofs." If you're going to be reading Oppy and Sobel, I recommend reading their counterparts in any of these books above (barring the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism," of course), that way you have a good balance of perspectives.

With regards to the philosophy of religion a bit more broadly, William Rowe, C. Stephen Evans, and Brian Davies each have solid, brief introduction books. Michael Murray and Eleonore Stump have a more thorough introduction; Louis Pojman and Michael Rea have a great anthology; and William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and Michael Rea have perhaps the greatest single resource on this subject.

Moreover, William Lane Craig has dozens of debates on topics concerning the existence of God (and other topics) available on YouTube. Here is a fantastic list of his debates with links available in the table. You'll see some popular figures in the list that aren't good philosophers (i.e. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, etc.), but there are quite a few very high caliber philosophers on that list too (i.e. Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, etc.).

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Good luck!

Like you're five? OK, the Holy Spirit isn't a what, but a who. The Holy Spirit is God - the one true God. The Holy Spirit is the "third person of the Trinity," but more to the point, he is the life, the love, the energy between the Father and the Son. Any time the Father does something (from our perspective, I'm speaking epistemologically here), it is the power of the Holy Spirit accomplishing it (such as creation, or the Incarnation of the Word, or anything else where we can say, "God did that"). So, God isn't "three individuals," where you have the Father doing this one thing, or the Son doing that other thing, or the Spirit doing something else. God is one. Whenever you see God at work, it is the Father acting through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, and what we "see" is the Son. So any time God is at work it is absolutely proper to say, "The Spirit did that" (like creation, for example), or, "The Son did that" (like creation, for example), or, "The Father did that" (like creation, for example). Any work of the one true God is a work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If this muddies the water, and if you are seriously interested, I have coincidentally just published a book called, The Trinity Untangled, and I'd be happy to send you a digital copy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> So you admit that your senses can be wrong and that leads people to delusions. How do you know you're not deluding yourself into believing in God?

Great question! As I mentioned, there is still a "softer" version of "knowing". Even though when examined logically, there are doubts as to whether my keyboard (or anything) actually exists, obviously I still assume it to be true. The level of doubt approaches zero (but never actually reaches it!) as time goes forward.

We all display our varying levels of faith in our lives. For example, you have faith that the airline pilot -who is most certainly in control of your life and death for a time- will arrive to your destination. Some people's doubts in the pilot are so high they choose not to fly.

Some people doubt a political party's ability to keep promises, some have faith in them.

Some people doubt microwaving styrofoam is bad, some people have faith that it does.

Some people doubt climate change scientists, some people have faith in them.

All this to say, practically at some point, you overcome the incredibly unlikely doubts (eg, my keyboard doesn't exist) and take a step of faith without even thinking about it.

Likewise, in my personal experience have I found the existence in God to proven over and over, to the point where the philosophical doubts became less and less.

> How do you go from this skeptical mindset, to full on believing in an omnipotent figure which has absolutely ZERO physical evidence?

In short, I believe in God's irresistable Grace. He gives you the faith first, and one cannot resist it.

> You can NOT prove God is real, or Christianity would no longer be a religion.

Unfortunately the Bible teaches that the evidence of God is "clearly visible" around us, but we all ignore it and delude ourselves to some degree.

Discussing with an atheist coworker once, we were on the subject of what would it take for him to believe. Given the premise "any significantly advanced technology is indisguishable from magic", he would dismiss anything supernatural as "there must be a scientific reason behind it!".

If all the TVs and websites in the world suddenly said "World, this is God, believe in the Christian Bible", he would dismiss it as probably a hacker group playing a prank.

If a giant hand descended from the sky and pointed at him and said "Joe Q. Smith, I am God, believe in the Christian Bible", all he knew was he saw a giant hand and a heard a voice. That doesn't mean it was God. As unlikely as seeing a giant hand in the first place, it could have been advanced aliens. Or a hologram / optical illusion ala Tupac on stage last week. Or someone could have slipped him LSD and pranked him with a megaphone.

The point being, I believe the only way someone to come to faith in God is if God gives them that faith. I could tell you that I have lots of friends who have [read books](http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307
) on the historical evidence and logical proofs for Christ and came to believe that way, but the whole time you'd be reading them saying "sure that sounds true, but I'm sure there's another explaination" or "I read on a blog that an obscure scholar says that's not how history happened".

Not saying you're necessarily wrong to be naturally skeptical and test everything (Christians are called to that as well), but for many atheists I know, no evidence would ever be enough. However, for many former atheists I know, they were convinced by the evidence they found.

TL;DR: I believe that God first gives one faith.

Thank you for sharing that. Not to be confrontational, but a book called The Unseen Realm: recovering the supernatural world view of the Bible written by an Old Testament scholar by the name of dr. Michael S. Heiser has the answers to many of the things surrounding other gods and sons of God written about and alluded to in the Bible; otherwise known as God's Divine Council and the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. Psalm 82 is another scripture that blatantly talks about other gods that are obviously more than just carved statues or idols. It is an epic read, and very thorough. It might be worth your time if you can approach the subject with an open mind. The author is a [non-denominational] Christian, but it was not written exclusively for Christians if that makes any sense.

In all truthfulness, the fact that you caught on to things like this weather on your own or with the help of some external influence speaks volumes about your character. In fact, I find it admirable. I wish more people, especially Christians were willing to wrestle with the Bible like this.

The modern church has lost quite a bit of context behind passages that allude to things like this, and shy away from them like they're threatening in some sort of weird way. When the truth of the matter is, they offer a brilliant backdrop to the bible message as a whole. I am not afraid of my Bible anymore. And I hope that you are encouraged to continue digging and searching for answers.

And again, I totally understand your frustrations with the church, I have my own frustrations. The church at Large, to be blunt, it's kind of a shitshow. But in the same breath, the church is also doing amazing things in the world. Church is both a collective entity and individual people. Like I said in my original comment, speculation is much easier than participation. In one way, I admire Christians that have a simple faith. But as for my own walk, I had questions that needed answers, I'm no chump. Seriously, that book that I linked above is epic.

There's a sub called holysummoners on the sidebar that you might like to be aware of. It has links in its sidebar to some specifically christian occult subs you should explore as well. Probably they can give you leads. Meditations on Tarot


I'm just going to spitball here. I would say that the important thing for you to explore if you want to explore this is looking beyond language. What are the words in your specific tradition pointing at. Probably not the same things that another tradition is even if it uses the same words.


God's universe is closer to an act of Magic than anything else and by emulating that act of creation we can come to know and love God more. (I typically wouldn't use that language )


The way I see it, Jesus was a magician. Soloman is explicitly a magician. As is Moses.


Popular Christianity as practiced today looks very little like historical christianity in many many ways.



The bible has many levels within it. The exoteric which is taking the book either literally or as stories to strive to live by. Then underneath the surface there are several esoteric, hidden, or occult(means hidden) levels. The bible is about You. Just You. It's also about everyone else but I mean read it as an allegory for your life and development as a soul. It is a retelling of the ancient star myths which also point at the microcosmic story of You. In the old testament the entire text is numerological(not sure about the new testament). It teaches magic. It shows the evolution of a particular lineage of human consciousness. It reveals the code behind creation and the Thoughts of God. Many more levels besides that. It trains you to see the many levels operating in every moment of your experience.


There are demon armies all over. Have been for a while. They just don't look how you imagine they look and demons aren't what you think they are. Neither are angels. No one posts pictures of them doing magic because that would be no proof. Magic directly effects the non-physical. The change that occurs in the physical is typically a string of the oddest coincidences. I'm afraid the barrier between our realities might be too great for me to communicate here. Have you considered that you know nothing? Not saying that your belief in the Bible is wrong, just putting out the possibility that you might be only seeing .0001% of reality and basing your assumptions on that tiny sliver.


In my experience, God wants us to become more and more conscious so that we can give service and aid in creation. And to generally enjoy creation. which is more and more possible the more conscious you are.



Do you think there has ever been a moment when you have been seperate from God?



David Mathisen has a book called the Undying Stars that is an interesting esoteric take on the bible. There's plenty of youtube videos he's made and a recent interview on The higherside Chats podcast that you might be interested in.



Witchcraft isn't inherently evil. It was competition so it was demonized by The Church. Do you mean why do people do so-called "low magic"? If the nature of the universe allows for magic, then making use of magic is just another way of getting things done. Most biblical characters do magic.


You have seen magic I'm sure. If you're looking for Harry Potter you're going to miss it. People all around you are doing it unconsciously if they aren't doing it consciously. This includes you. So it isn't possible to be a Christian and not do magic. It's not possible to be a human and not do magic. Sure you can never do it consciously but by existing you are operating on that plane to some degree.


The easiest magic to point at over the internet is advertising. Some dark black magic there.


Magic is probably both more and less than you think it is. It will boggle your mind if you ever actually see it.


I hear [https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot-Journey-Christian-Hermeticism/dp/1585421618](this book) is a key esoteric christian text.


There is a world more subtle than the physical that you can learn to see. It effects you whether or not you're aware of it. That's why watching a video of someone summoning wouldn't work. They aren't conjuring up a physical manifestation, though they and others might "see" it if they can.


Would you believe Heaven and Hell are within you?



God is the Source. The First Shaman, the Ancient Wizard, The Primal Magician. The Sorcerer. The Source-rer.


I really enjoy the book The Sacred and the Profane by Mircae Eliade atm.



God Bless you.

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

Here's an Amazon link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My advice is to start with The Book of Enoch. Lots of angels (fallen and righteous) involved in the action, interacting with each other, etc. It's technically not scripture (except in Ethiopia) but, just barely.

This book is alright, just for reference and exposing yourself to a huge swath of different angels. Definitely follow up on as many primary sources as interest you; they're pretty well indexed in the book.

Otherwise, don't stress out too much -- there isn't really anyone who's "fundamentalist" about angelology or angel lore. There's more imagination involved than theology, so definitely go where your inspiration leads.

I've actually done a bunch of research myself on different angels; if there's any specific angel you want to know more about I can send you some notes (currently at work but I'll see what I've got on Ramiel when I get home).

EDIT: At home and looking at notes. Heads up that Remiel / Ramiel (same angel) is not a fallen angel -- he's actually considered an archangel. His being the angel of "true visions" is from 2 Baruch, scroll down to Chapter 55. He has that title because he interpreted the visions to Baruch correctly, not necessarily that he himself grants any visions.

I'm pretty convinced that you will find the fallen angel you're looking for in The Book of Enoch though. If not, another source I'd try is Paradise Lost by Milton. Happy researching, and let me know if you need anything else!

Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.

BOOKS

The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)

Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution

Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found

Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream

The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution

The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.

ARTICLES

Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.

WEBSITE

An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS

Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior

How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54

Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.

Ok, well it all depends what stage of the journey you are at. Since you have been an atheist, the first priority will be to convince yourself philosophically of what exactly God is, and that God exists. Probably the best concise reference for this would be Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser (a professor of philosophy who was, in fact, an atheist himself, and is now a Catholic). Once you are in relative certainty about the existence of God, you need to know why the Christian theology represents a direct revelation of God to mankind. Obviously, the best record to attest to this fact is the Bible itself. I would really just recommend reading through the whole thing front to back if you haven't yet. If you get stuck in some of the Old Testament, flip over and start reading through the New Testament, and just make sure you cover all your bases there. Don't be afraid to come back with questions you might have about any scripture you read. Another good read might be an exposition on why we can trust the narrative on the resurrection of Jesus, where you might be interested in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas, an evangelical Christian scholar. Once you're there, you'll be most of the way along your journey into the faith and you might still question why the Catholic Church is the "right" one. There are dozens and dozens of resources responding to various Protestant objections to the faith, but honestly the best thing you can do is probably Catholic radio and podcasts. And actually, if you listen to "Catholic Answers" podcast (just search it on YouTube, daily podcast that you can listen to on Catholic radio or on YouTube live 6-8PM EST daily), you'll get a variety of quality information that runs the gamut from classic philosophical proofs for God from Aristotelian arguments to details of objections to the historical office of the Papacy in the 16th century, and everything in between, and the guys who do the apologetics on there are really humorous sometimes.

So if you're really detail oriented and want to wade into some books, maybe start by taking a look at those. If you just want an enjoyable and easy way to broach all these topics at once, I'd suggest start looking at the "Catholic Answers" videos. You could even call in to the podcast and get your specific question answered on air!

Hope this helps!

The answer of course is, "it depends". It depends on the soundness and cogency of the rich history of arguments for the truth of Christianity that have been offered through the centuries.

Like someone else pointed out, philosophy isn't a set of doctrines or propositions that you have to believe, thus making your question more akin to "can the truth claims of Christianity be simultaneously held with the truth claims of philosophy?"

There are many traditions within philosophy that are not compatible with Christianity. But of course there are rich philosophical traditions that are obviously compatible with it (Thomism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Calvinism, etc.)

If you're interested to go deeper into this question, you want to look at the sub-field of Philosophy of Religion. That's where all the interesting questions you probably have in mind happen.

I will warn you that most philosophers are atheists, but that should not deter you. Christianity has rich intellectual riches and some incredibly bright proponents who have dedicated their careers to defending it, people like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga being the top two.

For a good place to start, I'd suggest:

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland et al.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830826947/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_g3Zhtb0ANHZFF

If you find that it's a bit too technical for you (depending on your background exposure to philosophy), I may then suggest starting with William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith".

There are no easy answers, but starting there might send you well on your way.

I'm shocked this is even still a debate in schools... There is no competing theory that does anything close to explaining the natural world as well as evolution.

The debate should be framed not on "pro versus anti evolution" but rather is there any competing theory that can be presented which debunks evolution or better describes the natural world. There isn't, but if there were evolution would be replaced with that theory.

That being said the opposition presumably will advocate for Intelligent Design (I.D.) which is not scientific in the slightest and should be easily debunked with a bit of research. If you have time read this book, it does a wonderful job explaining the nuance of the debate. I read it in college and loved it; never had a second thought about evolution again.

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

If you don't have time these are a couple examples of evidence supporting the theory of evolution I didn't see posted below. Or maybe you could find a synopsis of the book I mentioned.

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/09/13/why-humans-must-eat-vitamin-c/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

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

Science isn't a pro vs anti debate; if that's the debate it's just an excuse to let religion into the classroom. The theory with the most credible evidence which best helps us understand natural phenomena should be the leading Theory. I.D. is not that theory.

Just want to start off of with saying that I am currently a christian sort of non-denomoninal I guess but I might think about that in more detail in the future. But I understand that you could be confused about the different accounts in the bible from the biblical writers. However humans tend to have somewhat different accounts of the same historical events which can be due to a few reasons, one is that they somehow interpreted the event somewhat differently, another possible reason could be due to the fact that the biblical writers got there at different times or may not have been paying attention the whole entire time thorefore it would not be shocking if they did indeed have somewhat different accounts. But my beliefs are that Jesus was who he said was which is the son of God and that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. However I do think that is indeed some truth in the majority of the widely followed religions, since if we observe them more closely we can see that they have similar fundamental themes from different cultures who for the most part did not interact that much globably with other cultures since the world was much less connected back in that era. But I say though that you might be interested in philosopical theism here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism , and this wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnism , and this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology also possibly look at some books at christian metaphysics, and look at scholastic philosophy here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism, read some of works by thomoas aqunias he was known as one of the greatest Christian Theologian/Philosophers who ever lived. I would also recommend the book the Experience of God by David Bently Hart, and the Atheist Delusion by David Bently Hart I have not read these books though yet but I have listening to some videos of him speaking on youtube and his ideas make a lot of sense and are very profound. I do plan on reading this books tho.

​

EDIT: I would also recommend mere christianity by C.S. Lewis who was an atheist himself before he converted to christianity. And also some books by edward feser who was himself an atheist for a period of time after he lost his christian faith but then returned back to his faith. I would also recommend this book by Francis Collins who is an well-respected scientist in his field has a PhD in Physical Chemsitry from Yale University and also earned an MD degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is director of the NIH since 2009, and he has founded the biologos organization which has a goal of making the christian faith compatible with science in which is always has been until we got into a postmodern state of science vs fundamentalism religion which of course is certainly not the case and this us vs them is of course a false dichotomy science and religon are perfectly compatible insofar that they are not extreamly dogmatic with everything in the bible being the literally true word of God without there being any metaphores or similar literary devices. But anyway I should at least also mention that Francis Collins was an atheist during his time completing his higher eduction and ended up converting to the christian religion. Anyways here is the book he has written https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-ebook/dp/B000NY12E6

​

Your post was painful to read.

Painful because I used to be an arrogant, know-it-all Bible apologist like your friend, and it's embarrassing to remember; and painful because I've since had debates with people like me/your friend after learning the truth, and these debates always go in circles and are so unbelievably fruitless and frustrating.

Listen--you cannot change your friend's mind with facts or logic. You can't change anyone's mind with debate; people have to want to learn and be willing to challenge their own assumptions. If this guy is truly your friend, and you want to be able to hang out with him, it would be far better to just say "I don't want to argue about it" whenever he wants to debate, and just go back to doing friend-stuff.

That said, if you are genuinely curious about his claims, there are plenty of resources out there. It's kinda funny, but biblical literalists don't have "facts", they have talking points, and they all use the exact same ones, over and over. Talk origins is the greatest single repository of every fundamentalist claim I've ever seen, and it includes sources for each claim and rebuttal. It's quite impressive.

I've read The Case for Christ, and it's not that good. It's an exercise in logical fallacies. But if you do read it and find yourself scratching your head at some of the claims, Robert M Price wrote A Case Against the Case for Christ and picks it apart with ease. (Price's other books are pretty informative, too, if you're curious about biblical history without the apologist bias.)

I hope this helps; just remember, these links and facts are only going to make your friend dig his heels in deeper. If you want to maintain any kind of friendship with him, I highly recommend changing the subject and agreeing to disagree.

If by 'lacking' you mean 'nonexistent', then yes.

I went to public school but with heavy influence from my folks and church, all of whom seem to be involved in some sort of Fundamentalism competition. I learned exactly as much as I had to in order to pass the test, but I was always convinced it was a lie because scientists are all "out to get" Christianity.

I'm still wrapping my head around just how unhealthy this worldview can be.

I'll echo /u/Cognizant_Psyche - kudos on taking that first step and deciding to get smart on this topic.

I talked to my church pastor, who passed me off to his wife (who has apologetics degrees out the ass). She recommended The Language of God, a tactic which soundly backfired on her. That book was fantastic. It explains evolution from a DNA perspective but then tries to tell me I can still believe in God if I want to. For me, from such a fundamentalist, literalist background, the bible had to be true word-for-word, yet this book flew in the face of the entire Genesis account of creation. If that wasn't real, how could I trust any of the rest?

Once I was 'cleared' to learn about Evolution, I grabbed Dawkins' The God Delusion. I watched the Ham-Nye debate. I grabbed Who Wrote The New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. That pretty much did it for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really do recommend John Lennox also

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

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

It's not a good apologetics book. It's a good encouraging read if you are a believer, and are talking to other believers who have a worldview rooted in the 1950s; they will think it's great!

But it's a bad apologetics book because it requires that both you and the person you are attempting to convince of the faith have a certain worldview even before the discussion happens--modernism.

McDowell's form of apologetics is called "evidentialism" because it seeks to overwhelm objections with answers, and seems to think that if you give enough right answers, you win.

(Many of his answers are satisfying to Christians and particularly older Christians. So don't get me wrong, this book can be encouraging to some and useful.)

But with postmodernism and more radical doubts about sense perception, this all plays into another apologetics method that's actually biblical and effective; presuppositionalism.

A great starter for you would be Five Views on Apologetics:

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764

Then read Richard Pratt's Every Thought Captive--easy reading, and gives you the basics of Presuppositionalism.

https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thought-Captive-Defense-Christian/dp/0875523528/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499447338&sr=1-1&keywords=pratt+every+thought+captive

Then read Dr. John Frame's deeper look at the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Justification-Christian-John-Frame/dp/1596389389/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1596389389&pd_rd_r=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM&pd_rd_w=RvQkE&pd_rd_wg=bXNAh&psc=1&refRID=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM

When you see the different views, you may want something other than presup--totally understand. But you hopefully won't pick Evidentialism. It's only useful today in certain parts of the world, like Eastern Europe, ex-Soviet areas, they seem to really gravitate to Evidentialism.

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

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

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

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

@Physical copies:

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

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

I think you may be asking the wrong question.

Fully grasping evolution is a monumental task. You need to have somewhere between a solid understanding and expertise in a whole bunch of fields. Off the top of my head: Biology, genetics, statistics, chemistry, paleontology, geology and probably lots, lots more.

But if you are only asking what you need to know to start to learn about evolution, the answer is not much at all. The more you know about those topics, the better, but you don't really need to have a very deep understanding of any of these topics if you only want to have a solid grasp of evolution. Evolution is obviously part of biology, but it is a distinct-enough subset that you can have a pretty solid understanding of how evolution works without much understanding of the more nitty-gritty parts of biology at all.

I would say that just about anyone with a sense of curiosity should be able to pick up the book Why Evolution is True and read it and understand the vast majority of it, and you will come away with a decent grasp of the fundamentals (at least enough to learn what you need to learn to understand more). Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth will be a bit more challenging of a read, but you will come away with an even deeper understanding. Either of them are well worth checking out if you are curious.

And FWIW, it is a great rabbit hole to go down... It is a really fascinating subject!

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

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

Yeah, the counterpoints series is a GREAT introduction on each of the five major apologetic approaches.

Five Points

Return to Reason by Kelly James Clark is a fantastic book on the virtues and methodology of Reformed Epistomological apologetics

Return to Reason

If you've noticed my username, you'll see I'm a proponent of Presuppositional apologetics. For a great introduction to it, I recommend Matrix of the Atheist by James D. Lashley

Matrix of the Atheist

and for a more in depth review and understanding of both the negative (deconstruction of a non trinitarian worldview) and positive (construction of the trinitarian worldview) argumentation I reccomend Greg Bahnsen's book Always Ready

Always Ready

If you or anyone else who happens upon this and doesn't have the means to purchase either one of the presuppositional books, PM me with your address and I'll gladly have one or both shipped to you (though they may be used).

Hope you enjoy!

There's full books on apologetics. Honestly some of them are bad. Some good. Same with websites. When I speak of Christian philosophy I mean folks ranging (and ranging in answers!) from Augustine to Aquinas to Kierkegaard. Getting a book on basic historical theology like this one by Alister McGrath (a former atheist with a PHd in both Theology and Biochemistry who has also written apologetic books) would be a good place to start.

I found reading historical theology, and finding how much of what I took granted for what faith was being really modern, to be one of the most helpful things.

The website Seedbed and Reknew have good resources as well with varying answers.

Here's some on the problem of evil.

Article: seedbed--the problem of natural evil

Video: 7 minute seminary--the problem of evil

Alvin Platinga, philosopher Notre Dame, might have somethings you're interested in

But, well, for me, I started reading Christian existentialists like the Kierkegaardian Catholic novelist Walker Percy (which is pretty obtuse of a thing to say). He presents more questions than answers, and I'm a literary guy so you might not be into that.

I will say G.K. Chesterton's Chapter in Orthodoxy "The Ethics of Elfland" was also something which awakened my theological imagination.

And I also think Greg Boyd, one of the only megachurch pastors I can stand to listen to, also has some great resources. His popularization of "Open Theism" theology (that God is subject to time just was we are and knows all possible realities rather than knowing a single determined reality) has been a more popular "theodicy" (answer to how there can be a good God over a world of evil) recently. Here's his website.

Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" is a popular level book which uses everything from New Testament scholarship (like N.T. Wright--who is very good) to evolution's compatibility with Christianity (cf. Francis Collins, a Christian and director of the Human Genome project) to create a popular-level explanation of Christian faith. Each chapter takes a different common question. I don't agree with his take on everything but it's a good place to start.

Over the past 3 years I've also found good conversation on /r/christianity. You may want to search for old posts there and see what folks have to say. You'll find a variety of answers.

In apologetics there are a couple of different methods. The first method is Classical Apologetics which is a two step process. The first step would be 1) prove theism is true. The second step is 2) prove Christianity is true. Evidential Apologetics basically says that if you prove 2) Christianity is true, you thereby prove God exists. The arguments will basically hinge on the Resurrection of Christ and the historicity of the New Testament. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then it validates his claims, or at least that's the idea behind it.

Presuppositionalism is much more complicated. It basically says that every person has to make assumptions about the world. For instance, if I am a person who believes that our senses accurately inform our minds, then I have to presume a number of things. They will argue that worldviews such as atheism don't have the necessary presumptions, and move to showing how Christian Theism has all the necessary assumptions.

For example, if you believe in the reliability of the senses, logical axioms are immutable, and cause and effect, then the principal of best explanation dictates that Christian Theism is true. I'm not sure, but they might actually simply say that Theism is true from there, and then do the 2 step model of classical apologetics, but I'm not either one.

If you want an awesome book on meta-apologetics, here is a really good book I found. A pastor friend of mine used it in a class, it details 5 views of apologetics very well.

EDIT

/u/k0np as promised

History

[Compasses and the Cross](Compasses and the Cross https://www.amazon.com/dp/0853182981/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_zD2XBbRYDSW6A)

For the money this is the best introductory text on the actual and legendary history of Masonic Templary from it's origins France through its manifestations in the chivalric degrees of the 18th century, the Strict Observance, the Rectified Rite, Royal Order of Scotland, St. James Place, and the various iterations in America before and including the GEKT.

Freemasonry and Templarism

Pierre Moillere's essay is a near perfect exploration of the Masonic Templary and a wonderful companion to Dafoe's book above.

Ritual

Grand Encampment Rituals
Good or bad, master one's on work - then move on to advanced topics.

Reprints of the Old Rituals

Includes the oldest forms of Webb Work and the Higgins KT Rituals as well as old French Workings.

Chivalry

What is Manly Honor

Brother Brett McKay's 7 part treatise on honor in the America.

Hermeticism v. Illuminism

There is nothing wrong with Hermeticism. I invite you to consider that KT better aligns with illuminism, vis-a-vis warrior monks, versus warrior magicians.

To put it crudely - D&D - KT are paladins (dual classed fighter-clerics) not war mages (dual classes fighter-wizards).

The spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola

The historical and spiritual foundation of the the modern tradition of Christian Illuminism.

[Meditations on the Tarot](Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1585421618/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_8c3XBbQWQ3NC3)

If I had to pick between this book and the Bible, I'd pick this book.

Activities

Historical European Martial Arts. Someone near by, even the SCA, most have some demos or classes

Heraldry. Our MW Brother, the Lord Lyon, has a wonderful presentation on the topic. Talk to /u/cookslc

Christian Mysticism. Odd as it may sound, there are ecumenical Orders of Monasticism who may be willing to talk about incorporating spiritual exercises in the life of laymen.

Thanks for your nice message.

These arguments made a big difference in my life and if they make a difference in someone else’s life (or at the very least challenged them to give serious consideration to the evidence of natural theology) I am very happy to hear it.

I understand your reservations about the argument from desire. I think I mention in my discussion of it that it has only moderate force but has an important place in the cumulative case.

I would highly recommend some further reading because my posts are all capsule versions of arguments that are presented and defended with much greater rigour in my sources. If you only ever read two books on this subject let them be The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne and The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright. If you have an iPad or Kindle both are obtainable in a matter of seconds online.

And regarding your question, I recommend this video: The whole thing or from around 6:00 if you’re short on time. In short: Aquinas suggested that wealth and poverty can each be either a blessing or a curse. Much more would need to be said to give a satisfactory answer but I think that is a good starting point. And of course if third world poverty is something that could be ended if first world countries were totally committed to ending it, then ultimately it is a consequence of moral evil.

All the best :)

Thank you for the link. I have it bookmarked and will give it a listen.

When someone on this sub references Lee Strobel's book I have on occasion replied with an encouragement for them to read Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ. Dr. Price defends everyone's freedom to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it does no harm to others. However, he does take great umbridge at Christian apologetics mascarading as Academic scholarship. His book is a defense of academic scholarship and he points out that Strobel's book is simply and singularly a rehashing of old Christian apologetics mascerading as historical scholarship.

I have your June of last year podcast qued up for listening: Richard Hays and Joel Marcus on Approaches to New Testament Studies. Dr. Price's book would be a good source on information if you did a podcast on what is Christian apologetics and why it is not academic scholarship.

To set the record straight:

I got a chuckle from your OP.

I do not have itunes and I sincerely wanted a link to be able to listen to your podcast.

From Wikopedia: In 2007, (Lee Stobel) was awarded an honorary doctoral degree by Southern Evangelical Seminary in recognition of his contributions to Christian apologetics. Strobel and his wife Leslie have two children and several grandchildren.

I would have no interest in going to hear Strobel speak.

I have never had hemorhoid surgery.

edit: spelling

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

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

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

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

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

I see Love that is not of this world and prefigured from the beginning of time. I suggest reading 'God is Love' from Benedict XVI and some books on the Mass like The Incredible Mass or Spirit of the Liturgy if that's what you see. I don't know if any other Churches have such depth and rich theology on Worship.

​

It may be helpful to see how the Eucharist was prefigured in the Old Testament and the Jewish Context. It's also helpful to get context that "blood is the life of the flesh" and the relevance of blood in the history of covenants in the Bible. “Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood” (Heb. 9:18).

> How could God grow in wisdom and stature?

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

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

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

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

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

Out of interest, have you read The Case Against The Case For Christ?

Quite a scathing comment in the Amazon comments (not that I pay much attention to that without reading the book myself):

>You see when Lee Strobel wrote his book, "The Case for Christ" it was a feel good book that was short on facts and long on fluff. It was easy to digest because there wasn't much there for your brain to do. It was rather a lot like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.


My interest is piqued enough to have quick look at both books though.

I've always felt as though the evidence for the biblical Jesus isn't sufficient for me, but I've always been on the look out for new information that makes me change my mind.

=-==========-=



Edit - I've been reading the book. Had to get to page 28 before any testable claim was made:

>Acts ends apparently unfinished-Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book
was written before Paul was put to death." Blomberg was getting more wound up as he went. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part-the gospel of Luke-must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so." He sat back in his chair with an air of triumph. "Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great," he said, "that's like a news flash!" Indeed, that was impressive, closing the gap between the events of Jesus' life and the writing of the gospels to the point where it was negligible by historical standards.

The author is declaring "case closed" on the timeline of the early bible based on the fact that the book of Acts remains unfinished? An assumption about why the book remained unfinished is followed by assumption after assumption. Scrolling through the rest of the book, the logic is just as weak throughout.

He is not looking at this from an evidence-based perspective, he is writing a story about a journey from unbelief to belief while skipping over the many leaps of faith it required for him to get there.

I wanted this to be a good book, but I partly agree with the quote in the Amazon review, this is a feel-good book written for Christians who are already convinced and are merely wanting some apologetics to go with it.

Just putting my thoughts out there.

for #5, I'd definitely check out Scott Hahn's talk on Mary and Brant Pitre's book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. I'd also read about some Saints and their writings on the Eucharist and try to see how they lived Sacramental lives. Here's a great website to have as a reference on the Eucharist, which also has a section at the bottom on Saints and the Eucharist + Miracles.

I'd also learn more about what the Mass is and how different parts of the Mass tie into Scripture. Even the responses and prayers that happen throughout the Mass tie back into Scripture (from the Sanctuary Lamp in Leviticus to Centurion's confession). It will really enrich your experience every week at Mass and help you learn to pray the Mass and prepare you more to receive the Eucharist every time. I'd give Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's The Spirit of the Liturgy a read one day too in the future. I always found it so beautiful how the "New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New". When you reflect on it, Christians across the centuries have always been drawn into this beautiful mystery in a very special way at every Mass and you can see their responses to God's love across the ages in the Saints. We're very fortunate to be a part of this communion and mystery. As was Christ's divinity hidden in the Cross, there he is also "hidden" in the Mass, within the Tabernacles across the world, and with us after every Holy Communion. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 has been one of my favorites to reflect along with this.

Sure. The first thing I did was read the primary sources and pretty much in chronological order. I began with the Apostolic Fathers (Michael Holmes has this edition with Greek and English). I then read some 2nd century stuff, especially Irenaeus. Cyprian, Tertullian, etc, were all important. The fourth century took me forever to read through. I probably stayed in the 4th century for a year.

For secondary literature, I'd recommend, in no particular order:

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition

J.N.D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines

Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Chadwick is my doctoral grandfather, so to speak)

Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon

Benedicta Ward's translation of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers

Less to do with Church history, but filling in some intellectual gaps:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion

Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (This may shock people that I recommend it, but I do like the nouvelle théologie every now and again)

I also welcome /u/koine_lingua to offer some of his own recommendations to give some balance if he'd like.

Alister McGrath's "Christian Theology: An Introduction" was super helpful for me.
He also has another called "Historical Theology" which I have yet to read, but have heard many great things about. He does a great job of tracing Christian theology throughout history, and framing it in a digestible, easy to understand way.

Based on your post, I have a suspicion that you're not actually a "free thinker". Why? Because you've fallen for a marketing trick.

Back in the early 2000s, a few years after the 9/11 attacks when people were starting to use the internet much more frequently, a certain viewpoint regarding religion starting gaining popularity. This has been referred to as "new atheism". It used terms like "free thinker" and "rational" and "fallacies" and even "science" as cultural buzzwords to sell books and speaking events.

And now, over a decade later, you're looking at "A free-thinker's list of essential reads" which includes some extremely questionable books. The God Delusion is especially shit, and I say that as an atheist. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris leave a lot to be desired.

In fact, I actually recommend that people who are interested in getting into philosophy of religion read The God Delusion. But not because it's good. Quite the opposite. It's the best book ever written for the purposes of practicing identification of poor reasoning. Seriously, there are so many flaws in it that explaining them all would take me dozens of max-length reddit comments.

If you want to be a "free thinker" regarding religious questions, you need to scrap that list and read actual philosophers. One of my favorite works of all time on the atheist side is Theism and Explanation by Gregory Dawes: https://www.amazon.com/Explanation-Routledge-Studies-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0415997380; and on the theist side, The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne: https://www.amazon.com/Existence-God-Richard-Swinburne/dp/0199271682.

Now, keep in mind that these are both academic works, and getting through them might be difficult if you're not familiar with philosophy of religion. But that's ok. Even if you don't "get" everything, they'll improve your thinking a great deal. And if you want more recommendations, PM me anytime. I am extremely well-read in philosophy of religion and can give you dozens and dozens of more things to read.

There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:

• Reason for God by Timothy Keller - from Amazon.
  
  If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
  
  
• Reasonable faith or the book with the same name, which sets out some pretty standard arguments.
  
  
• Stand to Reason
  
  
• Unbelievable is a podcast where it's pretty evenly debated.
  
  Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
  
  
• The case for the resurrection of Jesus
  
  
• The resurrection of the Son of God
  
  And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
  
  
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
  
  But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.

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

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

For me it comes down to the cumulative case for Christianity. I can imagine you must feel very hapy, joyful and open-minded. I would recommend a couple books to you:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
   
   2)http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803860&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity
   
   
2. http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803878&sr=1-1&keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict
   
   I think when you are done, that you will see that even with all of the legitimate questions and curiosities that Christianity has, it still is the most logical worldview out there. Also, I would encourage you to find churches outside of the Catholic church as the Catholic church keeps people in bondage. Try and find a solid baptist church. There is no perfect church, but we can find the perfection of love and holiness in Christ.
   
   Also, check out: http://answersforatheists.com/. This addresses many of the common questions and objections to Christianity from a very logical point of view.

Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P

I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6

Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:

Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1

The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.

https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send me a message if you want any more info.

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

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

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

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

Jason Lisle - The Ultimate Proof For Creation - a great starter book on the subject and easier to read.

Then you have anything by Greg Bahnsen (Read/Listen to "The Great Debate" with Gordon Stein) or Cornelius Van Til (father of presup.).

5 Views of Apologetics is good as well - http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0310224764

IMNSHO that book sucks. ;-)

If you want something worth reading, go for The Existence of God by Swinburne or The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.

The God Debates is written by an atheist but also does a good job being fair to the theist position.

If you're open to other ways of being Christian and have even a small degree of philosophic background, Paul Tillich's The Courage to Be is a must read. If you don't have a philosophic background, get one by listening to this podcast or this one or check out the easier to read Insurrection by Peter Rollins.

First of all a lot of sources come from traditionalists. The full account and where most sources are based on is Bugnini's own memoirs "reform of the liturgy". Which I unfortunately have not been able to find online.

What I can do is give you some sources, and you decide yourself if you find the sources credible, not only in relation to the claims, but also your own lived experience of the old mass and the various forms of the new mass.

I can however encapsulate the argument, basically the John 23 made the last liturgy changes in 1962, same year as Vat 2. For this reason most traditionalists assume that Pope John 23 intended the missal of 62 to be the framework of any liturgical changes. This is compounded by how the Vat 2 document SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM. Granted many places it references that the actual reform work will be done outside of the council but in my opinion the general guidlines resemble more of change to the 62 rite than an entirely new rite made up from scratch with dozens of options. John 23 having died, Paul 6 actually had to craft the new liturgy based on the loose guidelines, Bugnini was appointed, and many feel he high-jacked the reform of the liturgy, by not only using protestant consultants instead of only other bishops(as written in Sacrosanctum Concilium) but also several ideas of "protestantizing" the mass in order to let it appeal more to protestants.

Due to the council pre-approving any later liturgical changes in the expectation that the guidelines would be followed, in accordance with the 62 rite, many bishops that signed SC were shocked to see the fruition of the 69 changes, like Lefebre(SSPX). Traditionalists within the church claim that the 69 rite diverged completely from the contents of SC, and was thus hijacked.

In simpler terms traditionalists claim that bishops bought one thing, payed in advance and recieved something else in return. Some accepted the less ideal change(Traditional bishops), some chose to complain to get a refund(SSPX).

Personally I think it is a mix, Bugnini would not be able to change so much without support. I personally believe that Paul 6 was not tricked into authorizing the new rite. But this does not change the fact that there is dissonance between how the new rite was formed and what was "bought" at the council.

The following sources I consider useful

• 1 Reform of the liturgy by Bugnini Unfortunatley I cannot find a pdf, but this is perhaps the best way to understand by reading about the reform in Bugnini's own words. Not only this but it records his interactions not only with the Pope but with all the key players in regards to changing the Roman rite completely in a top down approach.
  
  
• [2 Spirit of the liturgy by then Cardinal Ratzinger] (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898707846/qid=1111861343/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1) Again can't find a PDF but Pope Benedict describes the mass of Saint Paul " as a creation of professors, rather than a liturgy that grew organically out of praying communities"
  
  
• 3 THE BUGNINI-LITURGY
  AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM Does exist as a PDF and goes in depth by trying to figure out how and why the changes in liturgy where implemented.
  
  
  There are other sources, but I think many of them are unneeded bias and combativeness. Not to mention most analytical works are firmly in the traditionalist camp. The 3 sources I believe are good starters to form a personal opinion without too much bias, especially the first source.
  
  

First, I'd start with PBS's Nova and their fantastic documentary on the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School in which Michael Behe was a prominent witness for the Defense. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Behe's claims are destroyed by Kenneth Miller (a biology professor, Catholic, and outspoken critic of Creationism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller and he even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669/ref=lp_B001JSEEXQ_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384565&sr=1-5

Next, read Judge Jones' final ruling which covers why Behe's claims are NOT science and clearly support a "Creationist" agenda to influence public education under the support and guidance of The Discovery Institute. This case is a fantastic primer for folks interested in a condensed lesson on evolution vs creationism.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Enjoy!

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

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

I had this exact feeling.

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

some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:

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

  keep fear away and ...good luck !

You mentioned in this thread that you were interested in WLC. There are several works that might be helpful to you:

Reasonable Faith

and if you have a lot of time

Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Craig and Moreland, but includes a large collection of topics from many modern philosophers)

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Craig and Moreland)

Again, these last two are rather extensive, but you may find them to be useful if you're interested in the philosophical/scientific aspects of Christianity. Hope this helps!

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

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

To learn about the history and basic ideas of doctrines and dogmas, a good textbook is Alister McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction
It's definitely worth the investment. Even picking up a cheaper earlier version is great.
The Bible itself is a great tool, but having something alongside to help make sense of the ideas in it makes it much easier.

I think the best thing to do here (especially if you enjoy reading) is to do some study into the good reasons why Christianity is believed to be correct. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith is one of the best, most cohesive defenses of the reasonability of the Christian faith I've ever read but there are plenty of other good sources too (Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God and The Coherence of Theism, J.P. Moreland and Bill Craig's Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, Paul Copan and Bill Craig's Come Let Us Reason, Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, and Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief just to name a few).

Read this and you will be well prepared to answer pretty much any question out there, it may also be good to have just to look up the answers, you can just do a word search and find the material. The spiritual battleground is that of idea's and you can anticipate your secular colleagues and professors to be prepared to do battle with you on these accounts. Best wishes and may God bless you.

I love Ravi Zacharias and Timothy Keller.

I've read this book that gives five different views on appologetics:

http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764

Here are the 5 apologists from the book:

William Lane Craig (PhD, University of Birmingham, England) is research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University and lives in Marietta, GA.

Gary Habermas (PhD, Michigan State University) is distinguished professor and chair of the department of philosophy and director of the MA program in apologetics at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Paul D. Feinberg, (ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary) was professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Dr. John Frame serves as J.D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, Florida.

Kelly James Clark (PhD, Notre Dame) is associate professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The Tarot is an entire spiritual path in itself, a superb tool to understand your sub-conscious and the world around you.

Can I suggest you look at Meditations on the Tarot by Anonymous, and, [The Tarot: A Key to the Wisdom of the Ages] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Tarot-Key-Wisdom-Ages/dp/1585424919) by Paul Foster Case.

Both will give you an enormous amount of wisdom. None of them are incompatible with your faith, in fact will reinforce and broaden it.

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

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


EDIT: You wated the Kindle version KINDLE VERSION

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

Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:

The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie

God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga

God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga

The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne

The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne

Can God Be Free? by William Rowe

Perceiving God by William Alston

Not so much. I have read the King James and Gideon Bibles. Been to 6 or 7 different churches over the years. Read several other books on where the bible came from and what it's about and this just recently. That is an educated opinion of mine. Just taking something on faith is like a blind from birth person telling you how beautiful the blue sky is. I entered the searching faise of my life threw the need of an answer. And after looking at what the bible is, the directional base of the Christian faith. I found it be undeniably fiction. Look for yourself. I challenge you.

For the record. My SO that I plan to marry is a practicing Christian. I don't hate or dislike any groups of people as a whole. Just am weary of the fact that people of faith do not think for themselves as a whole.

Long life to you and yours!

Reading the answers there's some great banter, but here's some more practical info - in case you were actually serious in your question.

If you're after Judeo-Christian concepts, then look up Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels as it lists numerous demons.

Another guide would be the Lesser Key of Solomon which has detailed demon descriptions and guides for summoning.

Another place to start would be Enochian Magic principles. Put the three together and you're off to a good start... but

Read this before you do anything, Dion Fortune's Psychic Self Defense.

/u/Insanelopez has the best advice so far - if you're being serious. Don't get stuck into something too quickly that you don't know anything about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither. They all ultimately originate from the Marseille deck which has a much older richer history than any other deck. Specifically, I like the Camion Marseille deck that Alejandro Jodorowsky restored. The Arcana are much subtler than the Waite deck.

http://en.camoin.com/tarot/Tarot-Marseille-Camoin-Jodorowsky-en.html

There are also a lot of great books written about the Marseille deck.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Tarot-Spiritual-Teacher/dp/1594772630

http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Tarot/dp/1585421618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373642673&sr=1-1&keywords=meditations+on+the+tarot

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

I recommend these books for a deeper study:

Stories from Ancient Canaan

The Early History of God

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism

The Evolution of God

Honestly, that's a truly awful book. Even by apologetics standards. Here is a good book that takes Strobel's points chapter by chapter. Strobel, like most apologists, is speaking to an audience of believers, attempting to give them some reason to think their faith is rational.

BTW, have an upvote to cancel out the person who downvoted. I might not agree with you, but it seems you posted that in good faith.

Thank you for getting the joke.

I would not really advise to solely look at Enochian Text for this, you might want to start looking at
A Dictionary of Angels for some good baseline info
and the Sepher Rezial Hemelach

Fifth World Books - 419 E. 2100 South, SLC, UT. Ph.(801)486-6437 Will often know where to point you as well. Rosenblum's World of Judaica on Devon St. In Chicago can direct you as well as get you some very hard to find reference books.

Hope those can give you some more diverse and accurate sources of information.

EDIT: Also of course the Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation and The Magician's Companion

To add to what has been said, I would say that if you are at all interested in how the Kingdom of God influences culture and society, I would recommend the triology. He begins with a lot on the doctrines of revelation and expounds outwardly from there. He would be a great resource to add on to the works of Carl Henry and Charles Taylor. Shoot, between those three you have a seminary degree in the subjects of intellectual thought, culture, and Christianity.

Hmmm...so many recommendations. First, you need to have a basic grasp of philosophy (particularly Aristotelian philosophy, which leads to Thomistic thought).

• Aristotle for Everybody is very handy for getting a very basic grasp of philosophy as it pertains to the four causes and natural law.
  
  
• Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith uses a lot of natural philosophy and Thomistic thought to give "reasoned answers to questions of Faith."
  
  
• Transformation in Christ: On the Christian Attitude is a very dense, philosophical tome on Catholic philosophical thought. Very insightful and...really a work of art.
  
  
• Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio is a beautiful work from John Paul II explaining how the Church uses faith and reason together to defend Her claims.
  
  There are...so many more recommendations I could give, but working your way through these will take some time.
  
  >My dislike more from the fact that Catholics seem to think that these views should be encoded in society's laws rather than that they hold them.
  
  All of civil law ought to find its root cause in natural moral law. The Church uses not simply faith alone to defend Her claims, but also natural law. As such, there are certain Truths present (and observable) in natural law that should be reflected in our everyday behavior and legislated by the civil authority.
  
  We believe in an objective right and an objective wrong: a defined good and a defined evil. The difficulty, I think, is getting people to see the same thing!

You didn't write very much, so this is a shot in the dark. Please disregard if this isn't true. You seem to want to be convinced. Frankly, I don't think its anyones job to convert or convince you. This should be your decision, based on your decisions and research. Your post comes across as intellectually lazy. You also seem to want this to be a religious experience ("want to be Atheist") with some sort of conversion. I don't think thats the way to go, making a decision based on some feeling.

Now that I got that out of the way, here is a brief overview of my story. I am a new unbeliever. What started me down this path was realizing that god is never there. He calls himself a father, husband, and brother, but he is never there. I was going through a hard time and I would ask for him to show himself to me like he did to Moses or Elijah or Paul or Ezekiel or Joshua or Gideon or Stephen. I didn't want the hard times to end, I just wanted to have a conversation with him. I wanted to see him and talk to him. I wanted a father. Can you honestly imagine a human father treating their kids like god has treated humanity? CPS would show up and put him in prison for extreme neglect. I started seriously doubting gods existence.

I thought that emotions are not always a great indicator, so I looked into the historical evidence for the resurrection. Go for the heart of the matter. I watched several debates and the Christian arguments didn't come close to standing up under the scrutiny. Here is a list of the debates I watched:

• Licona vs Carrier
  
• Licona vs Ehrman
  
• Craig vs Ehrman (transcript here)
  
• Craig vs Parsons
  
  I should say that I watched these videos after I had read Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona, so I was familiar with the theistic side of the debate. I was actually mostly convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, but to be intellectually fair I wanted to hear what the other side said. The other side convinced me.
  
  

OP, in case you need it, there is a book that refutes the claims made in a case for faith. Here's the link

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile


Please report back after you and your wife finish your respective books and give us an update! :)

This might be helpful. It looks like a lot, but the sections are fairly short. Beyond that, there's a book called The Trinity Untangled, which is pretty good.

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Theology-Introduction-Alister-McGrath/dp/1444335146


This is a very popular book and is used as a text book for foundation studies at a few different universities. Also there is a book called Faith Seeking understanding by Migliore that is good as well.

• A Dictionary of Angels - A really well-researched and super interesting reference book, which will help you do everything from distinguish an angel from an archangel, name the different hierarchies of demons, draw Solomon's Seal, or enchant a flying carpet.

I'd recommend the Francis Schaeffer trilogy. http://www.amazon.com/Francis-Schaeffer-Trilogy-Three-Essential/dp/0891075615

It was reading Schaeffer in college that I discovered, “Christianity is the greatest intellectual system the mind of man has ever touched”

After rereading your post, you might be looking for more evidentialist materials, maybe something by Lee Strobel? I've never personally read any of his stuff, but have heard that's it's good.

I only skimmed the material, but it looks like the subject matter touches a lot on the "spiritual world" of the Bible. There's a ton of misinformation about this subject out there, so it's good to be skeptical. From your description, it certainly sounds a bit like a cult.

If you want good scholarly material on the subject of the spiritual world, check out The Unseen Realm, by Dr. Michael Heiser. For a more condensed (and entertaining) overview, check out this video series from The Bible Project.

For all things science and religion I recommend: Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga and Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart (please forgive the title, it was the editor's choice not his).

For the "problem" of Evil I suggest God, Freedom, and Evil again by Plantinga and Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright.

As a general primer on theology and philosophy go look at Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP Morgan Moreland (not the banking institution) and William Lane Craig.

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

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

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

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

This one has a pretty good listing of angels. There's also this on someone's website, and I do recommend the Book of Enoch.

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

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

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

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

Loved it.

First stop shaming yourself for doubting. We worship the invisible God. (Col. 1:15, John 20:8-10). Recognize that you live in spiritual warfare. (1 Pet. 5:8; Eph. 6:10-18) Do battle with your doubt. Read the word, and read apologetics. Understand that Christianity is true because it is the only basis upon which the world makes sense. Francis Schaeffer is remarkable on this topic.

The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume https://www.amazon.com/dp/0891075615/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_gKhxCbZGZFF9N

John Frame on nature is outstanding as well.

Nature's Case for God: A Brief Biblical Argument https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683591321/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_4KhxCbJ01DHFB

Lastly when the worst hits, cling to faith and know that your hope doesn't rest in your certainty or firmity, because he holds you not you clinging to him.

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."- John 10:28

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

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

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

This thread has lots of good answers. There are SO MANY resources out there, both in print and online, it can feel overwhelming. You could always go for an introduction like from David Ford or Alister McGrath. I personally like Mysteries of Faith by Mark McIntosh.

That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.

I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.

In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.

Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to

• scientific proof the universe began at a finite moment in time
  
  
• solid evidence of intentional design in the fabric of the universe, our planet, and biology
  
  
• documented evidence of miracles
  
  
• documented evidence of a non-material aspect of humans, some would even say of life after death
  
  
• solid evidence that the gospels are trustworthy
  
  
• and evidence that whether the gospels are historically reliable or merely "religious stories", Jesus really did rise from the dead.
  
  No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.

Part 3: Book recommendations:

If you want to dig deep into this topic, here are some book recommendations. Perhaps you would want to read N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series (this is very heavy, scholarly reading). N.T. Wright is the foremost scholar on the New Testament and this is possibly the most thorough literature on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and the Apostle Paul:

https://www.logos.com/product/37361/christian-origins-and-the-question-of-god-series

Anything by N.T. Wright is well worth reading (Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope would be good introductions). Likewise, anything by Ravi Zacharias.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Nabeel-Qureshi/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANabeel%20Qureshi

No God But One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517050609&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ANabeel+Qureshi

On Guard by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.ca/Guard-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1434764885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526542104&sr=8-1&keywords=on+guard+william+lane+craig

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

Bonus reading: Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526542237&sr=1-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.ca/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

Read anything by G.K. Chesterton, especially, The Everlasting Man


Answers to Common Objections and Questions:

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/

The Evidence for Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity's Centerpiece: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_as_Christianitys_Centerpiece_FullArticle?fbclid=IwAR0oE22vtBvR2u--R78tSyW-51OpIbWBfWDNH2Ep8miBc9W6uUJMwMsz0yk

Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/

Accompanying video to the link above: Why is Christianity True?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qJPZySo7A

How Do You Know Christianity Is the One True Way of Living? | Abdu Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ze_SVg-0E&app=desktop

What makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions? Verifiability is a Christian Distinctive: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/verifiability-is-a-christian-distinctive/

Is Jesus God? (Feat. Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Licona, Qureshi...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLoKCyDDAg&app=desktop

How Can Understanding Eyewitness Testimony Help Us Evaluate the Gospels?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCDDsPXQSQ&app=desktop

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection - Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? - Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD7w1Uja2o

‪Questioning Jesus: Critically Considering Christian Claims with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi‬: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpuEDp4ObA

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014 | William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s&app=desktop

Historical Resurrection of Christ?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Dc01HVlaM

‪Are The New Testament Documents Historically Credible?: ‬https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgdsIaqFAp4

Are the Gospels Accurate?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrDy_G8h88

(Answer to the common objection: ‘the gospels are anonymous’)
Gospel Authorship—Who Cares?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/gospel-authorshipwho-cares

What is the Evidence That Jesus Appeared Alive After His Death?: https://youtu.be/96WIa3pZISE

On Extra-Biblical Sources for Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances: https://youtu.be/-Dbx7PPIIsQ

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Or Was It A Hoax By His Followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELRKdxV7Wk

Follow up to the previous video: ‪Did Jesus rise from the dead, or was it hallucinations by his followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29224I3x_M0&feature=youtu.be‬

‪Did the Disciples Invent the Resurrection?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOHUWsNDPZc‬

‪‬Facts to show the Resurrection is not fiction, by William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AduPVkqbis

‪‬Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNdynwqtWI&t

What Do You Mean By ‘Literal?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk

Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection: https://youtu.be/4iyxR8uE9GQ?t=1s

Death, Resurrection and Afterlife: https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4?t=1s

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?: https://youtu.be/KnkNKIJ_dnw?t=1s

4 Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Really Did Rise From The Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4

‪What About Pre-Christ Resurrection Myths?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrCYVk6xrXg‬

Jesus and Pagan Mythology: Is Jesus A Copied Myth or Real Person?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/

Zeitgeist - Is Jesus A Myth: https://alwaysbeready.com/zeitgeist-the-movie

Did Greco-Roman myths influence the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pt9rlG7ABo&app=desktop

‪Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo‬

Moral Argument For God’s Existence: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Does Life Have Meaning?: https://youtu.be/it7mhQ8fEq0

‪Are there Inconsistencies Between the Four Gospels?: https://youtu.be/sgdsIaqFAp4‬

‪Why Are There Differences in the Resurrection Accounts?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz2lVGmXFI‬

Don't the Gospels Contradict One Another?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt9kCwttVY

Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimP8m3_hCk

Why the Gospels Can Differ, Yet Still Be Reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5wU2hxIfM

Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new-testament-gospels-are-reliable/

Find Contradictions in the Bible All You Want: https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2019/05/apologetics-find-contradictions-in-the-bible-all-you-want.html

The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/

Bart Ehrman is one of the world's most renowned ancient historians/New Testament scholars, and he is an atheist. Listen to what he has to say on the matter of Jesus' existence: ‪The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww‬

‪Bart D Ehrman About the Historical Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U6TJ4cwSo‬

Extra-Biblical evidence: In addition to the gospel accounts and the letters from the Apostle Paul, we have sources outside the New Testament with references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, etc:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Is There Extrabiblical Evidence About Jesus' Life?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U&app=desktop

How do we know Jesus was really who he said he was?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksvhHEoMLM&app=desktop


YouTube Channels to browse:

William Lane Craig - ReasonableFaithOrg: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg?app=desktop

drcraigvideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos?app=desktop

Ravi Zacharias - Ravi Zacharias International Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia?app=desktop

J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace: https://www.youtube.com/user/pleaseconvinceme/featured?disable_polymer=1

The Bible Project: https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject

Unbelievable?: https://www.youtube.com/user/PremierUnbelievable

David Wood - Acts17Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

Nabeel Qureshi - NQMinistries: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepxnLs6GWAxAyI8m2U9s7A/featured?disable_polymer=1

Randy Alcorn - Eternal Perspective Ministries with Randy Alcorn: https://www.youtube.com/user/eternalperspectives?app=desktop

Frank Turek - Cross Examined: https://www.youtube.com/user/TurekVideo

Brian Holdsworth: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdsworthdesign

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

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


The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well the Bible does talk of an explosion and of a significant lag time from universe creation to earth creation:

http://theauthoroflife.org/the-creation-story.php

> And, in any case, how does (somehow) establishing the universe's creation by a sentient being have anything to do with "our" god, if it is ever found to exist?

God exists because there are plausible arguments for the existence of supernatural:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/the-existence-of-god

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles/existence-and-nature-of-god

http://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist

Christianity is true, because there are plausible arguments for the historicity of Jesus permanent resurrection:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

http://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead

http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308/

I'm a Christian that believes evolution.

If you love science I'd recommend these:

http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-ebook/dp/B000NY12E6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397140633&sr=8-1&keywords=francis+Collins

http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Universe-Is-Way-It/dp/0801071968

Read this.

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

May I suggest:

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

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

Among the most relevant references that we have about tarots there is a book titled Meditations on the Tarot written by a clever Christian mystic, that comes with a preface by a Cardinal, Hans Urs von Balthasar. I strongly recommend to read this book even if you are not Catholic Christian (I am not) because it's a real in-depth ermetic analysis about the tarots. If your parents will ever ask you something on this subject, talk them about this amazing literary work. You can buy it on Amazon .

New Evidence that Demands a Verdict

More Than a Carpenter

Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels On my to read list.

Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus

The Case for Christ

The Case for Faith

The Case for a Creator

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus On my to read list.

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ On my to read list.

Besides the apologetics books, you can watch John Lennox on YouTube. He is a very well-spoken and kind (doesn't attack the other debater) debater. Very well thought out responses. The Dawkins vs Lennox debate was awesome! Ditto Gary Habermas as well.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it's 14 years, but The Spirit of the Liturgy will always remain one of my favorites.

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

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

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

Interesting, have you read Francis Sheaffer? To me it seems to be more for the studious believer so they can intelligently discuss with the unbeliever.

I think The Case Against the Case for Christ might be a good one :)

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

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

The Greatest Show on Earth! Sunflower!

No problem, this is a good starter guide http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Angels-Including-Fallen/dp/002907052X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413201781&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=dictionary+of+angels+and+deons

It works as an actual guide with references to sources from which it is pulled. It lists the spirits by name like a dictionary, then includes the etymology of the name (if known), then a summary with references to whatever books/scrolls the information came from. There may be more up to date information elsewhere (I've had this book for several years), but if nothing else its a good place to start.

It also includes listings of angelic hierarchy which is funny because in some sources Arch-Angels are at the top, others (I would say the correct ones) have Arch-Angels at the bottom with the Seraphim at the top.