Reddit mentions: The best evangelism books

First of all, I applaud your courage to seek the truth even if it leads you to a place that requires humility. God loves you and is clearly drawing you to himself! The word "faith" in the New Testament means "to be pursuaded by God." He is the one creating the desire and belief in you even as it develops, how cool is that?

Now, in reply to your comment, a lot of people have differing opinions of exactly what a "literal" interpretation even means. My best explanation would be to say that everything that the Bible says happened, actually happened, exactly as it says... regardless of whether the author of the passage actually meant for it to be taken literally.

A simple example:

Most of Jesus' teaching is through parables, or stories that have representative meaning. Sometimes he begins them "Suppose a woman has ten silver coins..." but sometimes he begins them like "There was a man who had two sons." Now, in my view, a literal interpretation of Jesus' teaching would be that this man and his sons actually existed, because of how he phrases it. But there is good reason to believe Jesus is making up this story to illustrate a point, and this would be generally understood by his audience, much like beginning a story "once upon a time" indicates that this is fiction, even though your literal words are saying that this story happened. Think about most fiction you read; rarely if ever does it explicitly state that it is fiction -- usually it just says this stuff happened and you are supposed to understand that it didn't.

So... there are parts of the Bible that are believed by many Bible scholars to have been written with the intent of teaching a principle but not to be a literal, historical record of fact. There are MORE parts of the Bible that are certainly standard written histories, and many of these stories have fantastic and miraculous elements. So I am not saying that you can't take the Bible at face value, because most of it is absolutely meant to be read that way.

But there are parts that are written about the beginning of the world, and for reasons I won't get into explaining here (you can research if you're interested), many who know this stuff better than you or I ever will are convinced that they were written to illustrate the truth that God is the creator of everything, but not written to describe exactly what his specific method and timeline was for creating. Similarly, there are visions people have of their future which are written in an extremely metaphorical way, much like dreams represent true ideas but not literal ones. When I dream of my teeth falling out, it means I'm stressed about something, but not specifically about my teeth falling out. So many of these predictions were not thought to be literal representations even by the people who had the visions or made the predictions.

The good news for you, as a person investigating faith, is that these interpretations do not really have to have significant impact on your journey at the moment. Your focus should be on the love of God for humanity, and the (historically factual/literal) accounts of Jesus' life in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Get to know God and spend time reading the Bible, with the Holy Spirit guiding you, before you draw your line in the sand about what kind of interpretation you insist on being correct. That would be like me placing a million dollar bet on a baseball team to win the world series before I'd ever even seen a baseball game.

You have been given some good book recommendations already. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is an extraordinary book that spends a fair amount of time just pondering logically the likelihood that God exists at all. It gets more specifically into Christianity later in the book.

There are also two books by pastor Timothy Keller that you may enjoy: Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. These again are more about the arguments for and against God's existence which you may or may not need at this point in your journey.

But of course, the most important of all is simply the Bible. The Gospel of Mark may be a good place to start because it is a historical record of Jesus' life written for the Romans, and therefore explains a lot about the Jewish customs that they would not have understood. But any of the four gospels are a wonderful place to begin.

Enjoy your journey, and I encourage you to take that leap of faith and ask God to show you the truth, even if you are not yet sure he even exists. I would pray such a prayer every day, or every time you begin reading anything about God. He is already drawing you to himself but prayer is a practice that brings our wills into alignment with his, and so when we pray for things that he already wants to do, he tends to show up even more significantly so your faith will grow.

Thank you for the indepth reply.

God has revealed Himself through creation:

>For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)

I won't discuss a generic creator or pantheon because those are not my beliefs. Just the Christian God to which denomination doesn't matter provided the person accepts that they are a sinner and that they may receive the gift of freedom from sin and it's consequences through Christ alone.

Do you ever feel out of place? Or like things are wrong? Christians agree! We believe that because of sin, creation is corrupt bringing about all kinds of pain and frustration. This is another way that God reveals Himself to some people.

But really, existence is a pretty good argument for God. We exist in the "Goldilocks zone" that is one of very few places in the known universe that can support life. Not only that, but life actually appeared here. Just having the ability to support life doesn't automatically make it happen. In addition, we have intelligent, self-aware life. The math for this to occur is impossible. it can't happen. And yet we're here.

The debates are only necessary because God loves you and called His people to love you as well. There wouldn't be a debate if nobody cared.

God isn't a trickster nor an angry child not careless. His perspective as Creator and master of creation is wildly different from ours but always perfect. That includes a perfect love and a perfect sense of Justice.

If you want to know more about the reliability of eye witness accounts of Christ, I'd recommend Cold Case Christianity where an evidence-based approach is used on the gospels and supporting data. Man, Myth, Messiah also touches on this (and if only $1.99 on Kindle right now). And I understand that The Case for Christ written by an investigative reporter also looks into this but I haven't read that book myself yet.

Religious people don't have that much power. People who claim to be religious might. While 70% of Americans claim a "Christian heritage" only 40% of those people attend church. And only 45% of church attenders read the Bible away from church. Believe me, if more people who claimed to be Christian, actually knew the tenants of the faith you wouldn't have any problem with them being in power. The basics for Christianity start with: love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemy. Christians aren't called to hate gays, but to love them just like everyone else.

The instances of Christians being anti-science is mostly media hype. The scientific process began in the church as a method to explore and understand God's miraculous creation. The Bible isn't a science textbook, it's a collection of books and letters that form a singular narrative. It needs to be read and interpreted from that context.

And science has a lot of holes to be filled, including internal contradictions: quantum mechanics says the Big Bang is bunk, for example. Scientists and philosophers have been working for decades on a way to unify those pursuits called "the theory of everything". Science has faith that will happen. Some of what's called "science" really isn't. For science to be accurate it needs to be observable and repeatable. Here again, the Big Bang fails the test. I'm not anti science, and I suspect the Big Bang is valid, but I see it in Genesis:

> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [...] And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Maybe that describes Big Bang? Maybe not.

As to how well I know Christ the answer is, "not well enough." Christ followers start by accepting Christ as our Lord and savior for the forgiveness of our sins. Then we change. That change is called sanctification and it happens by getting in relationship and learning from Christ. I mean this literally through prayer and by studying the Bible. God wants to be in relationship with us. The change is to make us more Christ-like. You assume Christ is unaccessible which isn't true. He's alive right now, today. And I am constantly surprised by him and his compassion and sacrifice.

There's a lot of misconceptions about the faith. I'm considering a project to combat that both in popular culture and within the church. That's why I started this thread.

The "problem" you seem to have is something that every Christian on earth struggles with - the disconnection between knowing something in your head and knowing it in your heart.

This is something I struggle with - there's a stark difference between being intellectually convinced of the existence of God and actually feeling like He exists.

There's a difference between knowing "Yeah, yeah, God loves me." And actually feeling the incalculable, unrestrained love of God.

There's a difference between knowing theologically that you're forgiven and actually feeling forgiven.

It's a difficult hurdle. Fortunately, God is there to help you.

God sends the Holy Spirit to us so that we can experience the presence of God, so that our knowledge of Him can drop down from our head to our heart.

For a long time, I sought an experience. I'm an extreme skeptic, so I'm always incredibly doubtful of any of the miraculous stories I hear from others. At the same time, it's because of this doubt that I so desperately wanted to experience God for myself.

I decided that, if I were to take God seriously, I would need to do whatever I could on my end to "press into" God and leave the rest up to Him. This meant that I would go to the front of the church during worship, or ask people lay hands on me and pray for me. As a skeptic and an introvert, these were huge steps for me. And many times, I wouldn't have a tangible experience with God, and I would get disheartened.

However, there have been a number of times now when I really did have experiences with God.

God lives in you. You have the Holy Spirit inside you; Christ Himself lives in you. However, for whatever reason, God sometimes gives us strong, palpable experiences and awareness of His presence, whereas most of the time we're not aware.

As someone who was originally skeptical of the "charismas," or of personal encounters with God and His Holy Spirit, I now urge you to pursue relationship with God.

That means spending time in prayer. I grew up always praying in my head with my eyes open, because I knew that God could still hear my prayers. However, I've discovered more and more that the act of going in my room, closing the door, kneeling, and praying out loud is richly rewarding. That's how people prayed throughout the Bible. I think that it helps me to connect that I'm praying the God of the universe, rather than just thinking to myself and projecting my desires.

For me, personally, walks alone and in nature have brought me closer to God. I'm someone who's always been deeply affected by nature - even in my doubt, I see the hand of the Creator in His Creation. And some of my encounters with God have been when I've been on a walk alone, not in a church.

Nonetheless, Christian community is extremely important. The Bible affirms repeatedly the importance of the church. If you're not already, try to attend church regularly and get involved with a youth group. I'm incredibly introverted, and in high school I would have thought I'd never be involved in a social group like that. However, our desire to know God should be higher than our desire for personal comfort. We need Christian friends and community surrounding us - people who will love and encourage us, people we can confide our sins and struggles to, people who will pray for us.

Worship is also incredibly important. I didn't used to sing in church. In fact, I went to a Christian school, and I would often remain seated during chapel worship. I was a Christian, but I thought that worship just "wasn't the way I connected with God." I thought that other people who are into praise music can connect with Him that way, whereas I connect with Him in other ways. While it's true that some people connect to God through certain channels more than others, we are all called to worship. I was making worship about myself - What can I get out of it? - instead of it being about God. Ironically, the more you make worship about God and not about yourself, the more you're bound to actually get out of it. This is one of the radical truths of Christianity - the more you give up of yourself, the more you truly are yourself. The more you live for others and for God, the more you're truly alive. It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Lastly, I must mention that good sermons and good books are really helpful, especially if your mind works similarly to mine. I mentioned in another comment Mere Christianity and The Reason for God - I consider them both must-reads for any Christian, but especially the one struggling with doubt. There are other good books, some specific to a particular doubt. (For instance, if your doubt has to do with the relationship between Christianity and science, then The Language of God is a must read.)

As far as sermons go, I really recommend Timothy Keller. If you have a smartphone or mp3 player, you can easily get podcasts for free.

I'll be praying for you. Feel free to PM me with any additional questions, or any particular doubts.

>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 am so there with you.

The challenge with some of the louder atheists voices is that, while they are factually and logically correct, they let the big, fat target of dinosaur-riding literalists dismiss all value from any sort of spiritual or religious inquiry. You shouldn't have to feel constrained by that sort of black-and-white dichotomy.

My advice is: 1) feel free to call yourself whatever you would like, 2) believe whatever you can square with both your intellect and your heart, 3) don't feel swayed by anyone who says you can only believe A if you also believe B and don't believe C. Some people find comfort in boundaries. You may not.

If you are true to yourself, you will end up confusing a lot of Christians and non-Christians. It'll be worth it.

I will probably get crucified by the diehards and traditionalists, but for me personally, as a science/math/engineering-loving rationalist, I can not believe that Jesus literally walked on water or that he literally rose from the grave. I can not believe in a proverbial heaven. I can not believe in an anthropomorphic, supernatural God that intervenes in human history. I can't literally believe much at all about the Bible, other than that there is some great wisdom written down by very wise people a long time ago.

For a long time, I avoided the tough questions that you are wrestling with by sweeping many of them under the rug as "mysteries of faith" and relying on my gut experience of the divine, something like, I often feel the presence of something divine, so God must exist, and if God does exist, then I guess God could do A, B, and C. But no, at the end of the day, I can not believe in physics defying miracles. I just don't. I read some Christian apologetics. What I read is comforting if you already believe or really want to believe, but ultimately, I didn't find any of it convincing.

Once I just admitted it and stopped wrestling with trying to believe the illogical/impossible, it really freed me up to explore what is important to me. I can believe in the idea of divinity, that there is intrinsic worth and numinous beauty within the cosmos and within human life that goes beyond just our material value.

I can love Jesus, the concept of Jesus, the stories of Jesus, the celebration of what Jesus represents. I can believe that his example and teachings are a path that will bring me closer to communion with the divine and with other humans. So I can call myself a Christian, attend church, and do whatever else that brings me closer to God and Christ.

You might want to take a look at the book Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong.

tl;dr -- You can follow Christ and not believe the illogical/impossible, but a lot of people won't get it

Hey, welcome to the sub. :)

First off, you have the right attitude (more than many churchgoers, it seems). You want to understand and wrestle and have it be real. Good news: you're on the right track. Faith is hard, at least most of the time. I'm sorry others looked down on you for asking questions and trying to figure things out; they were wrong to do so.

I agree with what others here are saying: Genesis is probably not the easiest place to start, and you'll get even more bogged down in Numbers or in Chronicles. Start in one of the Gospels. I saw Luke suggested, and I'll throw in John. Luke's writing has more details, and John's might be easier to read.

Starting in the Gospels has a purpose: Jesus is really the major focus. There's a lot to gain from reading his words firsthand, and seeing his actions. You might find it a lot different from what the culture says about him. Take your time and soak it in, and I think you'll find him pretty compelling.

After that, Paul's letters are pretty great. Philippians might be a good one to read first, though they're all really short and won't take long.

I might also suggest reading a different version of the Bible. The NRSV is accurate, but can also be archaic and difficult to understand. There are a lot of debates over Bible versions, but don't sweat them for now; I'd suggest the ESV or the CEB (if you want to study deeper later, the NRSV might be better then).

You'll probably want to find a church. This can be hit-and-miss, depending on so many factors. You won't and shouldn't fit into a church that looks down on you for struggling with faith. To start, even though it might feel silly, talk to God about it. Doesn't have to be fancy, just a conversation asking him to help you find a good church. Visit a couple, and see if they try to follow the Jesus you read about in the Bible.

(And if you're in the Dallas area, let me know... you can visit ours! :D I know a couple other great churches in the area too.)

If you're looking for more resources, it depends on what you're interested in.

• www.biblegateway.com if you want to read the Bible online. Tons of versions (again, I'd go with CEB or ESV). I find it harder to read online, but it's good to have on-hand anyhow.
  
• I second Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. It's a great read with some heavy concepts explained simply (Lewis was fantastic at this).
  
• For the Resurrection (central to Christianity), check out Willaim Lane Craig's books, The Son Rises and Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, and, for a debate, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?
  
• For the creation story, Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation is a must, as there are several viewpoints on Creation (another reason starting with Genesis might be difficult).
  
• For doubt, I recommend Disappointment with God.
  
• How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth is a good one for... well, pretty much what the title says it's for.
  
• Along the lines of Mere Christianity, try G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. It's free, but might be a bit harder to read.
  
  BUT... don't go crazy. Start with the Gospels and maybe Mere Christianity, and go from there.
  
  If you have questions about what you're reading, feel free to come to this sub or /r/TrueChristian and ask. To be fair, there will be several opposing opinions on more controversial issues, which is a double-edged sword sometimes. But most everyone is welcoming, kind, and happy to discuss anything.

I'll have a go...

> How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....

If there is a God, then he gave you a brain capable of rational thought. Compare the claims of different religions against reality and see which one does the best of describing the world around you.

I suggest giving Christianity another go-- there's a good book called The Reason for God by Tim Keller that would be a decent read. I like it for two reasons, 1. Keller points out that Christianity is a faith where it's okay (and normal) to doubt. If a belief system is true, then it has nothing to fear from honest investigation. Also, 2. it lays out a rational and convincing argument for God.

> How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?

Perhaps the bible is not saying what you think it is saying? 'Evolution' is a pretty big and nuanced topic and the Bible is perfectly compatible with most of it. For instance,

• One can believe in a literal bible and still believe in an old earth.
  
  
• One can believe in a literal Bible and still believe in so called macro evolution
  
  Where the Bible draws the line is in regards to the origins of humanity.
  
  
• One can only truly believe in a literal Bible if they believe in a literal Adam.
  
  
• One can only truly believe in a literal Bible if they believe that humanity came about through a special act of creation -- while there is room to believe that animals may have evolved, humans did not.
  
  Now you can do with this what you will, but do not think that scientific consensus regarding evolution is as meaningful as you might think browsing a website like Reddit. While evolution explains many of the biological anomalies we see in nature, it provides no compelling evidence at all for abiogenesis-- the creation of life. The theory of evolution is built on the incremental changes in DNA that occur as life propogates itself, yet the problem is that life had to have begun somewhere in order for any propogationg to have happened in the first place. As far as I can tell, theories of abiogenesis are not based on empirical science. The best scientists in the world using the best equipment available cannot create life from inanimate molecules-- they can't even create proteins, which are far less complex than DNA or RNA. The best thay have been able to muster is create some amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. Even these results are debated
  
  
  Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA has written in favor of so called directed pan-spermia, the idea that extraterrestrials seeded our planed with life. Honestly, this is one of the most compelling theories in favor of abiogenesis. This brings me to your comment:
  
  > If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?
  
  A nobel laureate and noted athiest has literally written papers proposing that a powerful alien seeded life on this planet. Sounds like science fiction to me.
  
  > How can someone who created the universe care about me individually?
  
  If you can grant the existance of an all powerful, all knowing deity, is it really that hard to believe that he would have the ability to know and care for each individual?
  
  ----------------------------------------------------------
  Just some thoughts, I'm interested in hearing what you think.

You have reached the very foundational elements of the faith that are a very large part of why I am a christian, or at least remained a christian once i sought out what the bible had to say about these exact questions.

So philosophically or more so existentially, the truth of why or what it all means has to be an open playing field so to speak. Fatalism, Nihilism or forms of Pessimistic thought have some implications that seem unpleasant or off putting to some, but ultimately hold water within their own logical frame work. Just because an idea is initially off putting does not make it wrong. The difference between those schools of thought vs. Christianity is that they are not built on a foundation upward, but rather a foundation is kind of the conclusion drawn out from an evolving argument. Christianity has a much higher burden in terms of it's foundational consistency.

Instead of being the product of reasoning, Christianity is a product of ancient documents ranging in literary style from history, poetry, theology, personal letters, and prophesy. Out of those documents a cohesive understanding of the universe and the existential impact of that understanding form the religion. That means the documents have to be the source and need to have not changed over the years to support new philosophies. (at least if you're rational)

So if Christianity is true, then the best way to test it would be to examine the most accurate understanding of these ancient manuscripts alone. That's everything from fields of archeology, historical and textual criticism to (what we are touching on in this thread) doctrinal and theological cohesiveness. Do these ancient manuscripts actually form a cohesive philosophy, without the aid of reasoning from a foundation outside of the documents? Also the documents examined have to be the most original copies of these documents along with the most accurate understanding of the way the original authors and readers would have understood them?


It's no easy task and definitely not something to exhaust on reedit. I hope i've given you a better understanding of some deep theological ramifications of biblical christianity and the kind of philosophical impact they have on hypothetical questions. I will now answer your questions, and the answers will no doubt seem trite and unhelpful. But i think i've reached the end of what i can say to a stranger on the internet, having no clue what background you have in biblical study and no idea where to start:

>So the point of Christianity is to glorify God? And if you fail to do this you suffer in hell for an eternity? This seems like a rather conceited concept does it not?

yes it does seem like that within the framework of human interaction and affections. So the way this idea works is not something to understand within the framework of human interaction and affections. God is not human and so again, it's an open playing field. The question is, does the answers the bible gives make any sense?

>So god is willing to punish those who have absolutely no control over whether they survive long enough to reach an age where they could even possibly understand Christianity? Or do you mean he will only punish the babies that would have never become christian?

I have no idea if either of those are true but the plausibility that they remotely could be is built off the theology (a study of the nature and character of god) in the bible. The biblical documents do not flinch in their explanations of seemingly paradoxical ideas. Paradoxical ideas crop up everywhere in the search for understanding meaning, morals, or truth in reality, it's up to you to judge what you think about the answers the bible gives.

>So god is responsible for saving you from a punishment he himself created? The way you depict it makes it sound like what you do is irrelevant in regards to being saved, by this reasoning, is there even a point to try and do ethical actions, since regardless of what you do, you are already saved or damned.

I can defiantly say "trying to do ethical actions" has nothing to do with being saved or dammed. And as far as the seeming paradox of god creating the punishment (what exactly this punishment is is debated between christians) that he himself saves you from? The ultimate purpose is that he gets more glory if he did it this way then just created beings already perfect and ready for eternity with him.





_

Some book ideas about what I talking about.

Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist answers how God's Glory works for our benefit from the bible.

The Reason for God answers some of the seemingly off-puting or paradoxical ramifications of biblical theology.

When a person becomes a Christian they are united with Christ.

They become one with him in a supernatural union.

Ever noticed how many times the Bible talks about us being 'in him' or 'in Christ'? (here are a few examples Phil. 1:1, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 1:3-10).

Also, ever considered that we received Christ and that he is 'in us'? (2 Cor. 6:16, Rom. 8:9-11).

What this essentially means is that everything that Christ is and did becomes a part of us.

We ARE holy because we are in Jesus and he is holy.

While we are not holy in an of ourselves, the Holy Spirit in us is changing us to be more like Jesus - he is making us more like Jesus and therefore making us holy.

In him we are considered holy, and the work of the Holy Spirit in us is making us holy.

Part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to help us want to be more like Jesus. Just think for a minute how you view Christ:

• Do you think he is just the most awesome person?
  
• Don't you want to show him how much you love him?
  
• Don't you want to positively impact others in ways which he did?
  
• Surely you want to follow his example and be just like him?
  
  Jesus was the one to perfectly bear the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
  
  To emulate Jesus as his disciple (as close as is possible) you'll need to seek these things in your life and through prayer. These things will lead to holiness.
  
  Don't fret though, as I said before, the Holy Spirit is in you and is going to help you to do this.
  
  If you'd like to read more about 'union with Christ', check out this pretty good article explaining it by Rory Shiner. If you really want to understand the concept, check out 'The Whole Christ' by Sinclair Ferguson. Be warned though: reading this book may well blow your mind and inject something very powerful into your walk with God ;-).

You asked why, not for a deductive argument proving the truth of our answers.


If you have intellectual worries about God, feel free to browse the various categories of responses to questions concerning His existence.


If you have doubts about Jesus, only you can answer those for yourself. We believe that He's divine and approaches us all relationally. Read a Gospel or two (John and Mark are my favorites). Get to know the story and seriously ask yourself if this Christ person, as character, speaks to you in any way.


NT Wright is a pretty well regarded orthodox Christian scholar by both Christians and Non-Christians, so you may want to read some of his work if you have questions to address about the truth of this character. Who Was Jesus? and Simply Jesus may help you.


If you find any of that compelling and wish to dig into some Christian theology of Jesus, a couple excellent books which portray my personal take fairly well are King Jesus Gospel and Start Here.

And, of course, if you wish merely to approach the idea of Christianity in general, C.S. Lewis famously asserted many fundamentals in his classic Mere Christianity.


If you want me to assert the truth Christianity by disproving all other religions, I will not. I believe that religion is, fundamentally, a search for the divine or God. If divine truth exists, I would expect it to be echoed throughout the mythic language of all attempts to know Him (religions). Conversely, I assert the goodness and truth of Jesus Christ, who I see as central, and anything else that matters falls naturally into place.

In addition to what /u/tphelan88 said, I would say that evangelism is not primarily about conversion, but about worship. We evangelize not primarily to save people, but primarily to increase true worship of God. Conversion is necessary for someone to truly worship, and so it is a fruit we desire to see from evangelism, but if everyone truly worshipped God, there would be no evangelism. After Christ returns, there will be worship, but no evangelism.

Because we are seeking to increase worship of God, the act of evangelism itself is a form of worship. Thus our evangelism has a fruit, whether or not it leads to conversion. When we preach the gospel to everyone, we know that our work is always bearing fruit, even when it doesnt always bring conversion.

If you are interested in a reformed/calvinistic perspective on evangelism, check out Let the Nations be Glad! by John Piper.

Edit: Also, check out the classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

I'm sceptical that the facts are as you say, or that we could justly draw the conclusion you do from them. Isn't it much too bold to say that 100% of miracle claims have been proven false? I don't have the inclination to get into a case-by-case examination of individual putative miracles, but consider the class of miracles that is easiest to prove by sainthood standards: an unexplained and permanent recovery from illness. I think it will be enough to mention a supposed natural explanation which I'm sure we've both heard invoked by sceptics in such cases many times: "spontaneous remission."

To me, this amounts to saying there is a natural explanation, which is that there is no natural explanation. In these cases, I don't think there are non-question-begging grounds for ruling out a miracle as an explanation, and if a miracle is the only viable explanation that can't be ruled out, it is reasonable to think it is the correct explanation. Maybe that's a case of shoving God into a gap and further scientific progress will provide alternative explanations for many present-day "miracles," but you can't exactly beat believers over the head with hoped-for future scientific discoveries.

Even if all miracles we had investigated were truly confirmed bogus, it would be rash to draw a conclusion that miracles are impossible. (You might object that you really are open to the possibility if "exceptionally good evidence" is presented, but I think it amounts to the same thing considering the lack of clarity about what exceptionally good evidence would be—something Richard Dawkins, for example, frankly owned up to in a conversation with George Cardinal Pell when he said that if a 900-foot Jesus showed up and announced "I exist," he would not believe.) We could only that we hadn't found any examples yet, just like astronomers hadn't identified any black holes until the 1970s. The Transportation Security Administration has screened millions of air passengers hoping to find terrorists, and hasn't made a single terrorism-related arrest, but we would not reason validly if we concluded that there were no terrorists, or that a higher standard of evidence should be required for terrorism than for other crimes.

As for the particular claim of the Resurrection, I see no reason why it should have to stand or fall together with all other miraculous and mythical stories. Granted, it's a valid criticism if the evidence for the Resurrection amounts to nothing and a totally arbitrary choice is being made to believe one outlandish, unproven claim and reject the others. However, the best Christian apologists (I have in mind writers like Michael Licona, William Lane Craig, and N. T. Wright) lay out detailed cases for why the Resurrection is the best inference that can be made from the historical evidence (and this kind of reasoning isn't just the province of a scholarly elite, it's filtered down to the general Christian public through more popular apologetics works like The Case for Christ and Reasonable Faith). The onus is on other religious communities to make a comparable case for their own miracle claims; if there is none, then even if you think the Christian case isn't enough, you can't say a double standard is being applied.

Yeah I can understand that for sure.

For me (I'm a Christian) the thing is, we have this reliable eyewitness testimony of Jesus and his miracles (in the Gospels) - they all agree and insofar as we have archaeological evidence it confirms them. There's plenty of internal agreement and we have independent non-biblical corroboration of much of what they describe

as an aside, there was an atheist cold-case homicide detective who applied his investigative skills to the gospels and came out the other side affirming that they are reliable - he wrote a great book about what he found

then you have Joseph Smith. he claimed to perform a miracle, there were no eyewitnesses to the miracle, and he couldnt replicate the miracle.

To me, God gives us plenty to know that He exists just by beholding creation - and then on top of that he sent His Son to take our punishment in the single most lavish act of love ever displayed. Then he gave us evidence for that too and made sure it was propagated (the NT documents have thousands more copies than any other ancient document at all - so we can check them for accuracy easily)

So he gives us plenty of info to find Him and know Him, but not so much that He overrides our free will, because love must be freely given.

So I think to combat the truth of God you have Satan leading people like Joseph Smith into creating false versions of the truth, because hey, most ex Mormon/ex JW/etc people have no interest going forward in hearing about Christianity.

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

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

I've found that I've really enjoyed some books that address topics that are interesting to Mormonism without being related to it at all.

Karen Armstrong (comparative religion/religious history), Bart Ehrman (biblical textual criticism), Timothy Keller (I really loved "The Reason for God"), Joseph Campbell (mythology), have all helped me gain a greater understanding of religion in general.

Other books that cover science and history have been excellent as well. I had what could be called a spiritual experience learning about the magnitude of life and how it exists when I read Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". I would also suggest learning a bit about the origins of modern civilization by studying about Mesopotamia. I found a bit of interesting American history (that also briefly mentions the 19th century "burned over district" and Joseph Smith) in "Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation."

My current read is "This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" by Charles R. Harrell, a BYU professor. It seems like the type of book that many Mormons would find offensive, while many Mormons would find it inspired.

I also enjoy reading scripture and seeing what it says without trying to make it fit what I think it should say, especially the New Testament. Honestly, I think that the New Testament inspires fewer wtf moments than any of the other books of scripture :)

Ah yes, wonderful! The Catholic church would agree with you about Genesis, as would I. I find it possible to appreciate parts of the Bible so much more when I understand that its supposedly historical accounts are riddled with metaphor and augmented with stories and miracles to enhance meaning. A really neat book on this subject is Jesus for the Non-Religious, by John Shelby Spong. I HIGHLY recommend it, and I'm an atheist. While I ultimately disagreed with some of his final premises and conclusions, I thought it was a tremendous work to rationalize a belief in and worship of Jesus. Here's a review from a secular organization, which still praises it.

Thank you for acknowledging my nonbelief. I appreciate that. As for "god v. science," I agree that I don't think there is a necessary dichotomy. Even such ardent atheists as Richard Dawkins have admitted that there is a possibility that a designer was involved in the origin of life, even though that conclusion is not supported by evidence and abiogenesis is a more compelling theory. And I will be the first to admit that there are still many questions that need answering about the origin of the universe, though the assumption that a "first cause" was responsible is flawed. What I hoped to hint at above is that even though there is no intentional enmity or conflict, as you say and I second, there are better ideas than a god to explain things once attributed to gods. It is entirely possible that Poseidon is still somehow responsible for the weather by controlling air pressure and humidity, but we have rejected any claims to his existence because it does not make sense anymore. Science does not set out to disprove the existence of gods, it merely moves forward, leaving old ideas behind it. I should also note (for the trolls out there) that I do not perceive science as an "alternative" to religion, nor do I have "faith" in it, nor is it the only means by which people can leave their religion; such descriptions and claims are misleading and untrue.

EDIT: Links, for sheer justice.

TL;DR Yay, science! I agree that the Bible should be read allegorically; read Jesus for the Non-Religious! Science doesn't seek to conflict with religion, nor does it render supernatural entities impossible; it just makes them obsolete and highly improbable by explaining things better, with more evidence.

Also, I really appreciate this conversation :-) Thinking about this stuff is fun and engaging.

They aren't Orthodox theologians, but:

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

\>faith, by definition, is a delusion. It is belief in something without evidence, reason or logic, the practice of wilful delusion

In response to this I'd make the point I initially made, which is that to pretend that getting rid of religion produces some kind of ideological vacuum, a faithless existence, is naive. Whatever we believe, we believe by definition with incomplete evidence. We aren't God ourselves, and until we are, we don't know what's really going on out there. The scientific method is a beautiful tool for understanding the world around us, but we can only scratch the surface with our experiments and observations. The more we learn, the more we understand how incredibly vast and incredibly complex the universe is. Why does the scientific method even work? Why are there regularities, abstract objects, mathematical truths? Why is there order and structure in the universe?

My own faith isn't simply based on wishful thinking, but also a collection of arguments and evidence I find convincing, including a defence of God as the basis for any system of objective morality--you can find excellent resources to help you understand where people like me are coming from at

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

or

https://www.rzim.org/

or by ordering Tim Keller's book "The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594483493?ie=UTF8&tag=booresbytimke-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594483493.

I hope that you might find in these resources answers for some your questions, or at least a broader understanding of religious faith.

ah, this is the third time a previous post of mine is appropriate, here is the original link, but have copied it here:

*****
Whereas my upbringing was not like yours (my parents raised me to be open-minded and inquisitive), my sunday-school teachings sunk into me in a way that made me a true believer, without my own knowledge of it.

In many ways, it was like Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God.

I just knew it was right, and I would read into things... the Gulf War, to me, was the first sign of apocalypse, that kind of stuff.

I told my girlfriend how I got out of it, and she wanted me to share this with people:
I had gone through some truly horrible experiences in college and dropped out for a few years. The whole time, I wondered, "why, God, I have been a good person, why is this happening to me, I have done everything you have wanted me to do."

The problem of theodicy... why do bad things happen to good people?

I started searching for answers, and eventually came across Godel, Escher, Bach. In digesting and reasoning through it, I realized the following:

Within any formal system sufficient for arithmetic, there are truths that cannot be proved within that system, that are nonetheless still true.

I had a rigid belief system that I felt was analogous to a formal system, in its rigidity, requirements for self-consistency, and stricture. I could finally acknowledge it, but couldn't, for the life of me, get out of it. It may not have been formal system in the strictest sense, but it had many of the same properties.

However, I also knew I was missing something, some higher truth that I couldn't perceive within the system. I realized I needed to Jump Out Of the System.

That is to say, I knew there was a larger truth (or truths) out there, beyond my reach, but I could not grasp it within the language of the system I was stuck in. That did not deny the greater truth of that "out there", but rather highlighted my limitations due to the strictures of my belief system at the time. Nonetheless, my rational abilities let me take the leap of reasoned faith that my instincts couldn't allow.

So I took the leap, around 1998, methinks. Explored alternate belief systems, altered states of consciousness, and have come to see that small opening outside my boundaries in much the same way as the simple jump the robot Moe does when he first walks outside the lines in the movie Wall-E.

I really do feel for people indoctrinated in any belief system that claims exclusive privilege on truth. As Shakespeare writes in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt in your philosophy.

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.

As for anti-theism, I'm anti-fundamentalism and anti-theocracy, and some would say that makes me an anti-theist.

I think some theism is mostly harmless, and some is very harmful. As long as the mostly harmless ones decry the harmful ones along side me, I'm fine with them. What pisses me off is when liberals dare not speak against fundies. I'm quite happy to see books like The Anointed(which I'm currently reading) and Crazy for God(which I haven't read yet), where non-evangelical believers rip fundies a new one. I hope they will take it a bit more seriously then they do when atheists point out their lunacy.

At minimum, 2/3 of the planet is totally wrong about the "true" religion. The groups who want to war over the fact that theirs is correct are dangerous on all sides, and every side is convinced that their way is the true way. They all can see how each other's god concept is totally crap, but can't see that their own tribal god is false.

If you like singing songs and having pot-lucks together, and want to think you live forever without that stopping you from caring about justice and love and excellence in the here and now, good for you. If your goal is to pass laws and indoctrinate until the whole world believes in your tribal god, and not care about this world because the next one is going to be so much better, go fuck yourself.

> No, they don't.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
>
> But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

No, the only thing I'll agree to is that both you and Ehrman are totally wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Cold+case+christianity&qid=1554338796&s=books&sr=1-1

>Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?

You're asking the wrong question. The only effect my faith in God produces is my personal salvation, which is not testable. But is there good evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God? Yes, there is very good evidence of that. One of the most powerful of these is fulfilled prophecy.

See:
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Hope-Hebrew-Studies-Theology-ebook/dp/B004OR18CY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=181JAOD14V0WZ&keywords=is+the+hebrew+bible+messianic&qid=1554338880&s=gateway&sprefix=is+the+hebrew+bible%2Cstripbooks%2C274&sr=8-1

---

Posted by: K**5

Are some of your family members Christian? You could talk to them (certainly if it's your immediate family like mom and dad or siblings). It'd be harder if it's like a cousin or uncle or grandmother, but you probably want someone to talk to who you trust. Do you have friends who are Christian? Maybe just ask them- if this is a big decision in your life, they should hopefully have your back. You might find out that some of your friends are Christian and you didn't even know because they were too intimidated to tell you that and now you made the first move so it's find to talk about it.

If you really want to read something, you could try reading one of the gospels. Maybe Mark? I also think you'd benefit by reading something a little less formal, a little more geared right at you (the gospels have a lot of context and history and previous knowledge that they expect readers to be working with, so either accept that there's stuff that's going over your head and read them anyway or get a study Bible to help). A lot of people recommend Mere Christianity or The Reason for God or others by Tim Keller. I think that's the sort of thing you're looking for.

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

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

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

Cold Case Christianity

Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig

Evidence for Christianity

There are a TON more...

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

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

We all have doubts. It's part of being human and being a Christian. As you mentioned you are still looking for truth and are open to the idea of theism. I would just recommend a few books for reading that are great intellectual reading about the subject. That being: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
as well as anything by CS Lewis notably [Mere Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425281260&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+cs+lewis) and Screwtape Letters.

All the best in finding truth friend, and although you may doubt Him (even as Apostles, greatest evangelists, martyrs, missionaries also did) I would not advise ruling out Christ just yet.

Former Protestant pastor here. My only experience with Catholicism is my friendship with Catholics, and attending Mass with a family I stayed with for a year. So my sample data may not be representative.

In my experience, Protestantism and Catholicism both tend to emphasize sin, both as an act and as a state of being, as something which incurs punishment. They disagree, at least on the surface, about how a sinner can experience pardon and gain admission into the presence of God. But both see the passion and resurrection of Christ in terms of an atoning, substitutionary sacrifice for human sins.

Protestants, to varying degrees, tend to frame salvation in terms of pardon or forensic justification (God chooses to call you righteous, because of Christ.) Sanctification is usually treated as separate from justification/salvation, for fear of mixing "faith and works" which are seen in Luther's terms as radically different things. Catholic laymen, in my experience, likewise hope in the forgiving mercy of God, but without the "assurance of salvation" that developed in 20th-century Protestantism. Heaven and hell [and purgatory] are still seen primarily in moral terms.

TL;DR: Heaven and hell and salvation are moral issues, and salvation is a matter of receiving pardon, in order to gain heaven in place of hell.

____

You'll certainly meet OrthoFolks with similar worldview. (And Catholics & Protestants with a much more holistic Gospel - cf. Scot McKnight.)

But Orthodoxy tends to frame sin, death, salvation, and deification in terms of the soul's condition of sickness, fragmentation, alienation, darkening - and healing, reconciliation, purification, illumination and union with God.

Justification [becoming righteous in our present experience] and sanctification [becoming holy in our present experience] are aspects of our personal participation in the life of Christ. That participation comes about through faith, in the form of prayer, service, self-discipline, and sacramental worship.

Orthodox pastors speak about passions as roots from which acts and compulsions of sin grow. Passions comes from the same Greek word for suffering that gives us pathetic, pathology, and refers to sicknesses of soul that God means to heal in us. Christ's Passion and resurrection meet us in our own passions, and he saves us by healing us. (Significantly, in the Gospels, "Your faith has saved you" and "Your faith has made you whole" translate the same Greek words. The Greek word for salvation encompasses wholeness of soul and body.

TL;DR: Death and hell, salvation, sanctification, and union with God are the current state of the human soul. Redemption and holiness refer to the individual's personal participation in Christ. Rather than a forensic declaration of righteousness, the Orthodox Christian trusts God to enable his repentance with divine power in synergy.

>our religion, ie: for Judaism

I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?

>Put up or shut up.

I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."

Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.

Books

• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas & Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne
  
• The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
  
• The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell
  
• The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig
  
  Presentations
  
  
• Gary Habermas - "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection."
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "The Resurrection"
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Evidence for the Resurrection"
  
  
• Doug Powell - "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
  
  Debates
  
  Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
  
  YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
  
  >if you don't like my tone
  
  I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha

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.

1. Here is a great article on the Old Testament view of life after death by TD Alexander. The question of what the OT teaches concerning the eternal state is very difficult. To answer your question on the hope of the OT people: For the righteous who are down in Sheol, suffering the consequences of God’s punishment, there is hope for them because God has the authority to raise men from the intermediate state at the resurrection. Resurrection is the hope, which is what the Pharisees taught.
   
   
2. The Scripture, taken on its own terms, teaches there is one divine author. So this unity must always be thought of when understanding the plurality of the many authors of Scripture (and vice versa). You can more on Hebrew cosmology with this excellent resource.
   
   
3. I can't really speak to this one. It is interesting, though.
   
   
4. No, He did not. Judaism was always a monotheistic religion. It taught that God is one (in number) and one (in essence). Deut 6:4 teaches this. Furthermore, I think taking the first Chapter of Genesis clearly shows that God is the Creator, he's not vying for his title against other Gods, he's the creator, and anyother gods which exist are idols made by man's hands or imagination.
   
   
5. Do you mean the royal "us" in Genesis 1:26?
   
   
6. Yes. I think a sound Biblical Theological argument can be made for this. Adam was original prophet/priest/king who fails in this garden-temple. GK Beale has done lots of work on this. See "The Temple and the Church's Mission.
   
   
7. I personally believe Jonah died and was resurrected. A full-orbed way to understand Jonah is to look at the life and ministry of Christ, who actually identifies with Jonah in Matt 12:40. I think it is a stretch, and inconsistent with what Christ teaches about Jonah to identify the Peter incident with Jonah's decent into Sheol.
   
   
8. Water can often be used as judgement in the OT (Noah, Egyptians), however we see that Jesus goes under the baptismal waters of Judgement, so to speak so that the church would safely be carried through them. (Noahs family = church, Israelites passing through red sea = church). Futhermore, after these OT water episodes, a New Creation emerges. Noah's family (and a new earth), and Israel (a people and a promised land) are born as new creations after the waters of Judgment flood their enemies. This adds significance to Jesus' acts of rebuking the waters, being baptised in water, and the Holy Spirit's continued ministry of creating new life as the (lord, so to speak) of the waters of judgement (Gen 1:2). And what are we told in Revelation? There will be no more ocean. Reading Revelation on it's own terms, we should think of what this would mean to a Jewish reader -- God has completely done away with judgement and wrath and chaos. The New Creation has arrived.
   
   If these topics interest you, I highly recommend this work: New Testament Biblical Theology, A. The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New.
   

Things that might make you wonder (not saying they would make you sure):

1. Physical constants, such as the strong and weak gravitational constants, gravity, etc. are all within a narrow range which allow life to exist.
   
2. Humans seem to possess an innate sense of right and wrong, which leads one to think people were given a moral compass.
   
3. The existence of the world and its highly complex and well working systems casts doubt on the idea of its creation coming about purely through chance, just as one would not look at a skyscraper and think, "ah, certain materials bonded together through chance and formed this impressive structure--it would be silly to think it was created through design."
   
4. More specific to Christianity: the Old Testament, which was scrupulously copied by Jewish scribes throughout history and written 400 years or more before the life of Jesus, contains literally hundreds of prophesies, many highly specific ones, about his life. A peer-reviewed study by a statistician found that the probably of even sixteen such specific prophesies being fulfilled in the life of one man by chance was equivalent to filling the state of Texas two feet deep with quarters, then picking one marked quarter by chance out of the bunch. I might print off a list of them some time for fun and see how they strike you.
   
   Your cavalier dismissal of a proposition that you have no conclusive evidence to refute seems unchallenged by your own introspection (that is, the proposition that it is possible that God exists). I humbly suggest that, if you read the above points and have dismissed them all already without any more thought, your denial of God is as much a faith position (or more) than many who do believe in God.
   
   Should you be interested in a scholar who presents these arguments more completely than I, I would suggest The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

I'd also like to recommend a book, if I may. I think Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel might open up the story of Jesus for you in a way you've never seen.

I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical church, and ended up becoming an atheist because of some of the same things you're struggling with--inconsistencies in the Bible, the lack of any compelling direction from the faith. What brought me back to Christianity was engaging with Jesus, his teachings, and his vision of the Kingdom of God transforming the world. He wants to make everything about our lives and society different, and he wants you to help! Not by forcing others to live by a code of behavior, but by learning to practice a lifestyle of such humility, grace, and peace that you puncture other people's narratives when you come into contact with them. He wants to colonize Earth with the Kingdom of Heaven, and he wants you to be his eyes and ears and hands and feet in the process.

Hello,

This book is a robust examination of the Christian faith, looking not only at doctrine but the evidence for the truth claims of scripture.

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

I greatly respect your attitude towards your husbands faith. The fact that you're here asking this speaks volumes.

edit: bonus recommdations

https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Carpenter-Josh-McDowell/dp/1414326270/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

> What'd you find on NT?

Unfortunately, almost all that I have read has been from books that I have in person but I'll link some of them:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Craig L. Blomberg

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Making the Case for Christianity - Korey Maas, Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact - John Bombaro, Adam Francisco


I've also had Dr. Daniel Wallace recommended to me, although I haven't gotten to look into his work much. I know he has some videos scattered on YouTube that can be watched, here is one.

I'd also recommend anything by John Warwick Montgomery!

> Yeah, sure thing. Really, the most damning thing to me is that he only interviewed apologists; the skeptics that he mentions in the book did not have the opportunity to defend themselves there. But here are some sources that I found interesting:

Thank you!


EDIT: Formatting

''Ya, its definitely the easiest to do nofap when you are busy and have other things to do that are meaningful that can distract you. What sorts of things are you doing now to fill your time to help w the nofap?''

Nothing much and here is the problem. I am going to do a trade thing pretty soon but currently I am essentially a NEET.

''Yeah, it is puzzling that the disciples chose to give their lives for Jesus after they had all fallen away. However it's definitely a leap to say that proves that Christianity is true though, as I'm sure you've heard''

Its not like suddenly hundreds of people suddenly claims that they saw the risen Christ. Unless something happened to cause them to believe that it happened.

I understand individuals being delusional but not all at the same time, mass hallucinations simply does not happen.

Its not like a resurrection story is believable even in the ancient world unless you actually see the person. But until then until a better explanation is put out I will remain a Christian.

''People do a lot of things that we don't understand, and it can be hard to ask one to accept that miraculous events explain these events since most often normal events can eventually be found to explain such circumstances. Now since we are dealing with something 2000 years ago, it's not like we can investigate the issue.''

For more information I recommend you check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696

I can't believe no one has put this one up yet:

“There is something beautiful about a billion stars held steady by a God who knows what He is doing. (They hang there, the stars, like notes on a page of music, free-form verse, silent mysteries swirling in the blue like jazz.) And as I lay there, it occurred to me that God is up there somewhere. Of course, I had always known He was, but this time I felt it, I realized it, the way a person realizes they are hungry or thirsty. The knowledge of God seeped out of my brain and into my heart. I imagined Him looking down on this earth, half angry because His beloved mankind had cheated on Him, had committed adultery, and yet hopelessly in love with her, drunk with love for her.”

Interesting post. I listened to these wonderful lectures a number of years ago, and this book recently hit the shelves by the lecturer Dr. Ferguson. I stand proudly with the Marrow men, and Pastor Boston :-)

Grace and peace.

The existence of God doesn't have immediate evidence like a cancer diagnosis, but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence for God. Christianity is not a blind faith.

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Life-Changing/dp/1401676707/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1543478665&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543478756&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity+by+j.+warner+wallace

Both of those authors were atheists or agnostics until they took the time to examine the evidence for the claims of Christianity. People like that don't completely change their life just because someone told them 'Yes, there is a God.' Wallace was a cold-case homicide detective and mocked Christians he knew.

>When I finally examined the evidence fairly using the tools I learned as a detective, I found it difficult to deny, especially if I hoped to retain my respect for the way evidence is utilized to determine truth. I found the evidence for Christianity as convincing as any cold-case I’d ever investigated. . . . I’m not a Christian because it “works” for me. I had a life prior to Christianity that seemed to be working just fine, and my life as a Christian hasn’t always been easy. I’m a Christian because it is true. I’m a Christian because I want to live in a way that reflects the truth. I’m a Christian because my high regard for the truth leaves me no alternative.

I'm not saying you should believe just because I say so or because a few authors write a few books about it. But doesn't it seem like there's enough evidence that you should take a seriously? If you're right about this, then you can move on with your life like nothing happened, and you would have more ammo if any other annoying Christians tried to convert you. But if you're wrong, then your eternal destiny hangs in the balance.

​

May not be an answer you expect to hear, but I would recommend learning about God and the gospel of Jesus. The Reason for God by Tim Keller is a great book, written specifically for skeptics and/or atheists. Not overly "preachy" Highly recommend!

I would highly recommend giving a fair reading to The Reason for God and Making Sense of God. Both books are written by author Timothy Keller.

The first half of The Reason for God addresses several of the most common critiques or "defeaters" of Christianity (i.e. "How can a good God allow suffering?"), and the second half goes into a more proactive presentation of Christian faith. I have found the book immensely helpful. I feel like Keller does a very fair-minded job of presenting the "other side of the argument" in a way that is not simplistic or based on straw-man argumentation. He also draws on a variety of literary and academic outside sources that make the book very engaging to read. The next book Making Sense of God was written a few years after The Reason for God, but in some ways it functions as an epistemological prequel that tackles more of the reasons why a faith-based worldview still has a place in contemporary society.

For extra measure here is a link that Tim Keller gave at Google over the his material in The Reason for God. The Q&A he does with the employees of Google at the end of the lecture is especially good.

The Mystery of the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery are both acts of the New Creation by God. There is a reason 2 Corinthians 5:17 calls us "New Creations"; there's a reason that Colossians 1:6 says that the Gospel is bearing fruit, harkening back to Garden imagery; there's a reson why the early Church Fathers called Sunday the 8th day.

Christ's resurrection has irreparably changed the nature of creation as we know it and it is now always growing forwards to a greater and greater manifestation of the kingdom of heaven onto the earth. I highly recommend that you read The Temple and the Church's Mission by G. K. Beale.

You should look into the story of C.S. Lewis, one of the most famous theologians and Christian writers in modern history. He, like you, was raised a Christian but became an atheist at the age of 15. When he was an atheist, he started reading about Christianity and asking some of the same questions you are, but finding answers. Two of my favorite books that helped me confirm my faith are linked below. Give them a read before you make any decisions.. Mere Christianity is a little tough to get through, but I have a copy with plenty of pencil markings in it next to my bed.

- Mere Christianity by CS Lewis

- The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

Also, about where you were born.. Catholics believe God knew us from the day he created us. Even if you were born in a Muslim family, you would have found your way to the same place somehow.

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller is pretty great. [And it's crazy cheap in paperback on Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300119353&sr=1-1)

Keller starts the book by describing 6 of the most common "God doesn't exist because..." claims and then refuting them. The last half of the book Keller makes the case for the Christian God of the bible. A great read, in my opinion.

Might as well check out the Penn & Teller Bullshit! take on Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama if you're interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8A0VsgeuY

And if you really want to hone the criticism:

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Verdict-Aroup-Chatterjee/dp/8188248002/

Mother Teresa gets a free pass all the time in several arenas as one of the "saintliest" human beings ever to walk the earth. This is a titanic sham and an excellent PR job by the Catholic church. Do humanity a favor and bust the bubble next time you hear it brought up. For those wondering about my old submission, I brought it up in my debate class when Mother Teresa was raised, but the professor shut me down by saying that criticism of Mother Teresa, even if true, would do more harm than good by disillusioning people who behave charitably because they hope to follow her example. Yeah, right. (Yes; turns out the professor is Catholic.) Charity with religious strings attached is proselytizing by using the disadvantaged—nothing more than rapacious opportunism.

Thanks. I'll check out the theories and Father Brown soon!

If you're ever looking for an interesting book from alternative perspective, I found Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation to be very interesting (and enjoyably written!).

Cheers.

If by "media", you mean, "reddit", then you might be right. I also listen to talk radio all the time (weird obsession), so Beck and Rush do a good job of convincing me themselves.

I actually agree with the tea baggers primary concerns, especially fiscally and constitutionally. I think free markets should be regulated for MORAL and ETHICAL reasons, and to promote financial STABILITY; but other than that...yup, more responsible, more state rights, ethical capitalism.

They're still dominated by religious nutters, though. Every major movement in the republican party since the Reagan era has been driven by religious fundamentalists and talk show hosts.

As for governing my speach; whatever....whatever, I do what I want! This is America, and if you don't like it you can get out! I think you take my comments to seriously; do your own damn research.

Here's a few books I've found informative:

Karen Armstrong's The Battle For God


The Culture Wars


Frank Schaeffer's Crazy For God


Francis Shaeffer's How Should We then Live?

No, those are good questions and not naive at all in my opinion. In fact, im still working through the implications of theistic evolution and the variety therewithin (non-athiestic evolution ideas mostly). Here is an article by a pastor named Tim Keller that discusses most of the questions you asked. Don't know if you've heard of him or not, but he's a fairly popular teaching pastor in the evangelical world from New York area, as well as the author of A Reason for God, which i own, but havent read yet. Anyways, that first link is an article he posted in response to people wondering how he can believe in God and evolutions. In a word, he claims that there is a literal Adam and Eve (brought up through evolution), but original sin didnt necessarily come through them (he breaks it down further). He also gives ulterior models for a thiestic bases evolution.

Like i said, im still working through what he talks about, as well responses to his articles by other Christians, so i dont have a clearly defined side on this issue, but its something that i like to think about.

Good question. Thanks for asking! What do you mean when you say
>the requirement of unquestioning faith?

As far as I've been able to tell, the crucial things about Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Bible - are historically well attested. For me, that's the most compelling thing about Christianity, actually - that it makes sense in light of what I see in the observable world. I think some people have maybe an inaccurate perception of what Christianity's about, and that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication when we talk about "science and religion" (which, by the way, I think is somewhat of a false dichotomy).

That was kind of rambly, but I hope it at least began to answer your question. By nature, I'm a fairly analytical (read: doubting Thomas) kind of person, so I appreciate your asking about this.

If you're interested, Tim Keller's The Reason for God has been a helpful book for me as I've thought through these things.

It's really interesting, actually, if you want to research that. I've looked into the New Testament much more than the Old Testament. I used to have a saved comment that I'd post when this topic came up, but I lost the file when my computer died.

I can respond to this, though:

> A story that was developed and passed down until someone actually wrote it down.

Paul was writing his letters earlier than 70-90 CE. 1 Thessalonians is dated to around 52 CE. This would be not long after the crucifixion. Also, the earliest (generally accepted) date I've seen for the gospel accounts is 70 CE. If we assume Jesus was crucified in 30 CE, that's only 40 years later. Eye-witnesses to Jesus' ministry would still be alive.

You might be interested in this thread from /r/AskHistorians. I want to specifically point out this comment because I think it illustrates that we often expect to find more evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels (was Jesus real?) than we do for most other historical texts and figures. There are some other threads in that sub on the topic of Jesus that you might find interesting.

I can also recommend a book to you that touches on this (among other topics). The Reason for God is a good book to start with.

I see it as based more on ANE theological motifs and cultic practices.

Haven't had time to sift through the comments (so likely noted elsewhere) but the Garden represented a Temple. The creation of the man/woman in Gen 1.27 was akin to the installation of the image of the deity in a temple. This is discussed more fully here.

Functional usage and installation of the temple image is discussed in these monographs:

• Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East by Michael Dick
  
• Cult image and divine representation in the ancient Near East ed. by Neal Walls
  
• Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient The Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ritual, by Michael Dick

If you're interested in his books, I recently finished reading Prodigal God and have a copy of Reason for God sitting atop my "todo pile" at home.

Prodigal God was a short read, but it was just enough to expound upon the familiar parable with a new insight. The crux of his argument was that "prodigal" is a more fitting description for God's own love for us (and the father in the story) rather than the lost son that we all associate with the word. He seems to have a knack for presenting fresh perspectives on things.

If you get a chance, I'd recommend either, although Reason for God is going to be the more substantial of the two.

Look at what's available to you. Read some things. Attend churches that focus less on it being a religion and more so it being a relationship with God. Talk to the pastors there about your issues with Christianity. Make it a priority in your life to find truth. Go where the evidence takes you. No matter where it does, you're going to have to take a leap of faith since no side can be proven totally 100% true.

I recommend Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator, and Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, The Apologetic's Study Bible, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace, and really just Apologetics in general

I would recommend Timothy Keller's "The Reason for God" as the author is very good at explaining how Christianity is not a pie in the sky thing. The book is geared to a public that likes logic and is very fact based as Timothy Keller started a rather successful church in NYC that seems to cater mostly to lawyers, doctors and finance people.

Have you thought about reading any christian theology books? I find reading opposing perspectives and ideas helps to strengthen my own. If I can make a few recommendations...

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias

The End of Reason - Zacharias

Christian Apologetics - Norman Geisler

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

I would highly recommend everyone read Wayne Grudem's "Christian Beliefs". It's an abbreviated version of "Systematic Theology". Very short but concise overview of basic christian beliefs.

I can only recommend christian material as I haven't read a lot of other religious text. Christianity is the most relevant religion where I live, so understanding has been helpful in conversing with the religious folks around me.

I actually think that it's a wonderful thing that the Bible shows clear signs of human effort. It's a beautiful masterpiece of literature. I don't think the human-ness of the Bible is a bad thing at all, but I do understand how it might bother others. I could go on and on about this, but it's probably better to let my influences speak for themselves. Here are a few resources that helped me:

We Need a Better View of Inspiration, by Dr. Michael Heiser

Inspiration and Incarnation, by Dr. Peter Enns

Inspired, by Rachel Held Evans

Interview with Dr. Tim Mackie, by Almost Heretical

In my opinion it's because it's the truth.

Humans get into long debates over this whole thing but here's my short version:

We exist. We must have come from somewhere. The Bible offers the best explanation for our existence.

See this book for a decent, scientific approach to the question of God.

I'm a Presbyterian(PCA) and I would strongly recommend Timothy Keller. I think that you would find him very insightful. You can go here and there are some free sermons. He seems to me to be one of the most rational and intelligent theologians out there, but yea I would strongly advise him. He has also written some books and you can find them on Amazon. The books I would suggest by him are Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and the Prodigal God.

>the name of the messiah prophesised was not Jesus.

Correct, I don't believe there was a name attached to prophesy, I didn't claim that they were waiting around for a guy named Jesus. Sorry if I came across that way.

>study != divinity

Not directly no, but it's a portion of it.

>is he god?

No. As far as I know, the people of North Korea do not have a prophesy list that Kim Jong Il fulfilled.

>How?

First, I don't know about the brainwashing abilities of the people in the first century. I would guess that if there were any of them, they weren't that developed, and the effects of it would most likely fall away without constant application.

There's a book that does a much better job of explaining these things than I do. it's called The Reason for God. It's a relatively short read. I'll even buy it for you if you can't get it from a library or another place.

I think /u/betweentwosuns comment is good and an excellent place to start. Once one gets past the fact that Christ was a real historical figure that actually existed, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable testimonies of what He said and did, then one comes to a crossroads. He must either reject His claims, either by simply ignoring them or outright disagreeing with them, or accept His claims by faith. One of the books that is often recommend for studying these things is Strobel's The Case for Christ and there is also a newer book out called Cold Case Christianity which is also good.

That’s a good question. I would recommend that the op examines the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a great place to start:

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434704696/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Nv2gDbYT5YDQQ

I would highly recommend (perhaps ironically?) Lewis's Mere Christianity which is available to read online.

That book helped me when I was looking into whether Christianity was true or not. That, and Tim Keller's The Reason for God (here's the kindle page).

Keller's book uses a lot of the material from Lewis's, and presents it in a 21^st century context, and answered for me a lot of protests I had against Christianity. I've listed the relevant chapter headings below.

• There Can't Be Just One True Religion
  
• How Could a Good Good Allow Suffering?
  
• Christianity is a Straitjacket
  
• The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice
  
• How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
  
• Science Has Disproved Christianity
  
• You Can't Take the Bible Literally

You are doing great. This is a great book that addresses much of the "new atheist" evangelism. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

> Prove that this man existed and that he did those things. You can't, just like Muslims can't prove that Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged horse, and just like Hindus haven't been able to prove that reincarnation is real.

We have eye witness testimonies. There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.

Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people. Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.

There is a good, very short, book by J.I. Packer called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.

https://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Sovereignty-God-J-Packer/dp/083083799X

It's a great read for understanding how those who believe in sovereignty and predestination still work hard at evangelism.

It's probably not your only reason, but you mentioned that you cannot worship a god that would allow so much atrocity and chaos. It would be worth your time to really explore your doubts even if only at first for your immediate goal of trying to understand her faith, and ultimately for your own sake. The Problem of Pain and The Reason for God are both books I have read and enjoyed that address those issues and more. Best wishes to you both.

I'm going to highly (with emphasis) recommend "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller.
It's worth buying it. There are some ideas that you will want to re-read. He has spent years as a pastor of a church in New York city answering some of the core reasonable questions that the skeptics ask. Even if you don't become a believer, I think this will provide you some ways of viewing the questions you are asking, and it will probably provide a few questions for Christianity that you haven't thought about yet and then provide a reasonable argument.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the book while you're going through it.

While this book is kind of loony, Frank Schaeffer is an interesting guy and not an idiot. I recommend his other book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

It's actually impressive how far he has come since he was a big shot in the Christian Right.

This was pretty good as well:

The Reason for God

Written by a Tim Keller, a pastor in NYC.

Since someone already mentioned Lee Strobel's work, I'll recommend John Shelby Spong's book Jesus for the Non-religious. It talks about understanding the Gospels with a broader, more mature mindset. I highly recommend working through these questions you're having rather than working around them, or worse, walking away from Christianity all together.

There's a good discussion with the author here

https://youtu.be/fUmKEH9jnu8

I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It sounds like just the thing you are looking for. I would also recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God.

I really am not sure what bait you are holding out, or for whom. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a historical event and belongs in the realm of historians. Science has as much to do with the fact of Christ's resurrection as it does with the creation of an independent nation state in 1776, or with the question of the intrinsic rights of man, etc.

I am not a historian but I would love to refer you to Tim Keller's The Reason for God which has an in depth chapter discussing historical events proving the resurrection of Christ.

Missionaries commonly find that God has prepared the way for them by planting hints of himself in the beliefs of many cultures, from Paul in Athens (who quoted "in whom we live, and move, and have our being" from a poem about Zeus) to the Algonquin Great Manitou to Peace Child.

I honestly found The Reason for God to be a good read. It's well written and the author writes with much humility.

> On closer examination, Horus isn’t much like Jesus after all. It’s not unusual for the characteristics of ancient pre-Christian deities to be exaggerated in an effort to make them sound like Jesus. The first step in refuting such claims is to simply investigate the attributes carefully.

This is from the article you linked. Also,

> In the end, similarities between Jesus and mythological precursors fail to invalidate the historicity of Jesus. The historical veracity of Jesus is determined from the evidence supporting the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Jesus is not simply a retelling of the Horus myth. While Horus worship is now a dead religion, Christianity continues to thrive. Why? Because the Christian records are reliable (for more on this, please refer to Cold-Case Christianity). Skeptics sometimes portray Horus as something he isn’t in order to keep us from believing in Jesus as something He is. But the reliable Biblical record establishes the Deity of Jesus in a way no other ancient mythological text could ever hope to achieve

Granted, this is a Christian website, but you're the one who linked it, so fair game.

Jesus is Lord my friend.

​



​

One thing, Sodom and Gomorrah, while understood by the vast majority of people these days as being destroyed due to sexual immorality specifically homosexuality, within the actual context of the bible were claimed to have been destroyed largely due to inhospitality.

The next thing is, why would you think that God would tell us not to do something and then feel that He would be able to justify He, Himself, doing it. You are right, there is hypocrisy involved.

Evangelical fundamentalist christians pick and choose what they want to assert their views on. The fun thing and the morally "right" thing for them to do is to draw battle lines about hot topics like homosexuality.

In reality, I do not think there is any biblical basis for condemning people to death. I believe that the bible is imperfect and written by humans which is why it often times doesn't make sense despite the mental gymnastics apologists often do to try and make it seem divinely coherent and whole. Peter Enns writes a good book on this titled Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament!

Lastly, everything in the bible needs to be reread through the lens of Jesus. Jesus spoke a lot about love. If you do some good reading, I think you will find some good things.

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/

C.S. Lewis, a well known Christian author, was once an adamant atheist. He described himself as "the most reluctant convert to Christianity"

From http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/48:
"Once, before embarking on a long train ride, Lewis purchased a copy of George MacDonald's book Phantastes. He was surprised by what happened during his reading. Something came off the pages and "baptized his imagination." Although he couldn't put this quality into words at that time, he later came to describe it as holiness."

God does work in these ways to call those he wants to believe in him.

As a Christian who has struggled with atheistic / agnostic ideas in the past, I'd highly recommend Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God". It calmly and rationally shows that it isn't unreasonable to believe in the Christian God.

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520121396&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god

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.

Check out these for the use of myth in Christianity:

Myth, History, and Faith: The Remythologizing of Christianity

Myth and Ritual In Christianity

Jesus Christ and Mythology

If you want "The Stories of the Bible for the Non-Religious" definitely check out Jesus for the Non-Religious though be aware that Spong is not well regraded by most mainline Christians and he ahs mixed opinions in academia.

Please don't base such important views on reddit comments. Talk to a pastor, just search church in Google maps and go talk to one. or read books by them Reasons for God by Timothy Keller would be a good read [amazon.com] andor his podcasts [itunes.apple.com] [podbay.fm]

If you want a couple books about how skeptics became convinced of the truth of Christianity I'd recommend:

• Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith
  
  
• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
  
  

I would recommend reading Blue Like Jazz
or Take This Bread they each are amazing books and both authors go through similar struggles that you described.

I love Hitchen's, but his book sucked. It was too short, for one thing. A much better and more comprehensive book on the subject is Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict by Aroup Chatterjee.

Jesus for the non-religious Here a scholar points out the massive flaws in the attempts to make Jesus a divine being predicted by prophecy. Also he shows the Bible to be bunk. Yet, he tries to cherry pick and make an argument that Jesus was a great teacher. It's a half-step towards atheism.

I don't know about an article, but Exposing Mother Teresa was a good, really comprehensive book. Don't know what to tell you about abortion, I haven't found a solution to that one yet.

Here's a great book from the other side. Frank Schaefer, a founding father of the religious right and the American Right to Life movement, recently wrote Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

He went from rabidly anti-choice to, while still not fully in support of abortion, supports a woman's right to choose in early stages.

For every woman who regrets that she had the abortion, there are many others who do not. Those who do not, will regret that they were in the position to require an abortion, but they value the life they were able to have because of their decision.

Donald Miller has a book in which he recounts stories of when he struggled with his faith. It's a very good read.
Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality

Read this!

http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Like-Jazz-Nonreligious-Spirituality/dp/0785263705

I feel like such a douche, this is always the advice I give; but it really is a good book!

The Case for Christ (the [book][1], although the [film][2] adaptation wasn't horrible) and Cold Case Christianity would probably be good reads for you.

Case for Christ was written by an investigative journalist and legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. It details his transition from Atheism to Christianity, and how his attempt to debunk Christianity lead to him coming to Christ.

Cold Case Christianity was written by a detective who solved a number of high-profile cold cases. He has a similar story, as his book details his conversion from Atheism to Christianity through the use of cold-case investigation techniques.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863/

[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6113488/

>condoms to prevent AIDS.
FTFY

Christianity is supposed to be based off 2 main rules, Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength (because he created you and loves you and wants to have a relationship with you), and love your neighbor as yourself (Because they are a creation of God and He loves them too). Anything done to Break these rules is sin, which puts a separation between man and God, because God must be perfect and man is imperfect. The only way to fix this is too repent because God wants to forgive our sin so he can be in relationship with us. But an imperfect person cannot repent perfectly be cause he has been corrupted. However a perfect person can repent perfectly, but has no need to do so. So God took the form of a man, lived a perfect sinless life, was killed (paying the price for sin), and rose from the dead (defeating death). Now because a perfect man payed the price of our sin, we can simply accept his sacrifice and be back in the right standing with God and we can have the relationship for which he created us.

And you have obviously never heard the story of the peace child. There was a tribe in the South Asian Islands who were visited by missionaries. They were told the story of the gospel. When they got to the part about Judas talking to the pharisees and accepting silver they listened closer. When they told about the betrayal in the garden, they cheered for judas. When they heard about Judas throwing the silver at the feet of the pharisees, they were confused. And when Judas hung himself they screamed out in protest. You see their culture revered betrayal. Long ago their king had two sons. one betrayed the other and took everything the king had left him, then he had two sons and one betrayed another yet again. and this continued until they believed betrayal to be the only way to succeed. So you would have people sleeping with a knife to ward off those who would kill them in the night for their property. So the missionaries taught them the story of Jesus himself in the context of biblical history. When they heard it they said that it reminded them of their peace child, the son of the chief who was traded for the son of the chief of a related tribe to ensure that they tribes would not attack each other. If one tribe did attack the other they would kill the peace child. The missionaries taught a better way to live, with christian morality. They taught them to trust and not betray each other. Don't you believe that this is better than how the tribe was going about things before? Oh and this is a real story. You can read about it in the book Peace Child.

Tacitus' words on the crucifixion of Christ are widely considered accurate. Josephus and Mara bar Serapion also record events surrounding Christ and the crucifixion. As a result of these and other evidences historical scholars (regardless of personal theistic position) agree that the person referenced as Jesus C hrist by us moderns did in fact exist.

There is ... vigorous argument around the veracity of the core of the four gospels. I found Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels very interesting because an atheist cold-case forensic analyst set out to prove the Gospels were false. Instead he became convinced they are factual eyewitness accounts.

Perhaps the "Big Questions" Series from this church is kind of what you're looking for?

This isn't an audio sermon, but it's a decent book I'm just about finished reading through.

Mere Christianity is available in audio for free.

Not trying to convert you. But I've been reading this book to research christianity and get past some of the inflated and possibly incorrect bs bout it. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0525950494 it basic analyzes the bible like we're back in English class. It describes things in a logic and open minded way and is a good read, whether or not you believe it in the end.

I feel like we need to address this by the actual facts and details of the resurrection accounts and their corroborating historical texts, as it’s easy to lose the actual magnitude of any given piece of evidence when we analogize. For instance one of the corroborating texts mentions the darkening of the sky the gospels claimed occurred during the crucifixion and explains it as an eclipse. Not exactly equivalent to a neighbor witnessing the reactions of potential witnesses.

On that note I’d like to refer you to Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace(as its been a while since I’ve gone over it all) where he goes over things like the reliability of the gospels as a reference, the corroborating texts, and the various explanations for the lack of a body, all bearing in mind the standards we hold for investigating crimes from decades ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539290737&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Cold+case+christianity&dpPl=1&dpID=513jwtjLlNL&ref=plSrch

This is the one I have:

https://www.amazon.com/Marrow-Modern-Divinity-Edward-Fisher-ebook/dp/B00701JFX0

It is really great. And after that, read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Controversy/dp/1433548003

A fantastic book.

To get a biblical perspective on the Gospel and the life of faith that follows I'd recommend The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight and Social Holiness: A Way of Living for God's Nation (aka Journey Towards Holiness) by Alan Kreider.

Sure. Here are a few, I'm sure you can find more

Hell's Angel- BBC Documentary

The Final Verdict - Book

Christopher Hitchens Article

One of my wife's books (I haven't read it) might be of interest to you.

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

The Marrow of Modern Divinity with Boston's Notes. (Get the orange and black one) https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1845504798/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1


The Whole Christ, which is the history about the Marrow Controversy that the book caused. https://smile.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Why-Controversy/dp/1433548003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522805635&sr=1-1&keywords=whole+christ

Your questions are legitimate and ignoring it is not the way to go. I constantly questions religion and try to learn more, its the only way to stay true to who you are because sometimes belief is NOT a choice. Tell me to believe in unicorns and I just can't Try reading The Reason for God, I'm currently reading stand really like it. Maybe it can answer some questions for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324620669&sr=8-1

Thanks! Lots to read here. I read Lee Srobel's book Case For Christ and I must admit I found it annoying and disingenuous. I will definatly have a look at Reason For God. Have you read Who Made God?

I would recommend Keller's Reason for God, which attempts to address this very question: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by Packer is the seminal work, and it's a quick read. Kind of like a Bondage of the Will-size treatment of a reformed doctrine of evangelism. Amazon link.

An approach to evangelism that is not only extremely helpful for all but also places the right emphasis on the power of God in conversion is Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman. Amazon link.

There's a great book out there called Crazy for God that goes into some of the political conservative takeover of Christian votes via the work of Billy Graham, James Dobson, Francis Schaeffer and others.

It's written by the son of Francis Schaeffer, who notes that his father also came to quite regret allowing himself to be drawn into the shenanigans, regarding many of the behind the scenes goings on as wholly un-Christian.

It's a terrible shame - even for Christians - because there are many parts of Leftist philosophy (and even history) that have a more natural alignment with Christian values, but these highly successful efforts seem to have dulled much thought around that.

My husband is currently reading Orthodox Alaska by Oleksa and enjoying it.

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Alaska-Theology-Michael-Oleksa/dp/0881410926

I would actually recommend this book to you

Cold Case Christianity - J Warner Wallace

J Warner Wallace was a cold case detective that did an empirical analysis base on cold case research techniques on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it would be worth the look.

No one can flee from making religious statements (=statements which can't be checked in a natural scientific way), because everyone has a certain view on the existence of SUPERnatural, which can't be checked in a NATURAL scientific way. This applys to every statement about religion, which means that every statement on religion itself is religious. So if someone claims banning religious Statements is the right thing to do, he bans his own statement, which means this statement is contradictory.

Timothy Keller explains this in detail in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (online summary) and in several online lectures.

I enjoyed Tim Keller's Reason for God

The most famous example of this that I know is Bruchko by Bruce Olson. He strikes off into the jungle as a teenager, totally on his own, and almost dies several times while attempting to make contact with an isolated tribe. Eventually he discovers that all along, the tribe had a prophecy about how someone like him would come to bring them a message of truth (or something along those lines).

There's also the really influential missionary book Peace Child, which introduces the "'redemptive analogy' thesis: the idea that each culture has some story, ritual, or tradition that can be used to illustrate and apply the Christian gospel message." Not quite the same, though, since I don't think he believes these indigenous narratives can be salvific on their own.

The only book I read as a Christian that tells exactly the story you're describing was a kid's fiction book: The Secret of the Desert Stone.

Why I Left/Why I Stayed by Tony and Bart Campolo (father and son, Bart left the faith and is a humanist chaplain and has a podcast)

Crazy For God by Frank Schaeffer

I mostly listened to podcasts of those personal stories. If you want some recommendations let me know.

This is the correct short answer.

The long answer is linked below, and it is well worth your time and money to read

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830826181/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473054914&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=the+temple+and+the+church%27s+mission&dpPl=1&dpID=41Wj1WGYN5L&ref=plSrch

Not going to try to convince you but a good book for the Christian skeptic is "The Reason For God" by Timothy Keller.

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Tim Keller

Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target - John Lennox

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God - John Frame

Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Greg Bahnsen

The last two are more in-depth philosophy-wise than the first three.

Exegesis is looking at Scripture and trying to figure out what it originally meant to its audience. This means studying the historical context surrounding the verse. Someone mentioned Isaiah 53 not being about the Messiah. Why do they believe this? Well if you look at the historical context it makes sense that it's about Israel and/or Isaiah himself. Isaiah was traditionally believed to be martyred by the king of Israel. But later in the New Testament Paul applies a new meaning to the verse and attributes it to Christ. Which is right? Well as a Christian I would say both are important. Hermeneutics is merely taking what you learned through exegesis and applying it to a modern context or what it means to us.

As for learning more about it I could name many different books, but here are the ones I read first:

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

Grasping God's Word

Inspiration and Incarnation

A book that has helped me with your same questions is "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller. His position is that there is much more reason to believe in God than there isn't. I appreciated how he doesn't come across saying, "This is what PROVES Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt!" Instead, he goes through empirical, scientific, and rational evidence that points to a creator. Go check it out. https://smile.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522341268&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god+keller

short answer: The gospel is the story of Jesus as he answers the story of the Hebrews.

long answer: you should definitely read The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight.

I thought that Cold Case Christianity was an excellent book tracing J Warner Wallace's journey from skepticism to belief. He was a could case detective in LA, and set out to investigate the claims of Christians.

https://smile.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=cold+case+christianity+by+j.+warner+wallace&qid=1570230013&sprefix=cold+case&sr=8-1

Perhaps something like this?

Blue Like Jazz was all the rage when I was in high school.

Sounds like Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns.

You should switch too, or maybe go for two books.

I recommend Tim Keller's The Reason for God.

I haven't read it, but this might be a start.

https://www.amazon.ca/God-Our-Side-Religious-America/dp/0767922573

Frank Schaeffer might be worth checking out too.

https://www.amazon.ca/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500

I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to believe in god, actually.

The Reason for God

Clearly many religions are quite irrational, however.

I think he's genuine. Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

He put that out in 2008. And he's been vocal about it for quite a while.

I suggest a combination of reading:


The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
by Timothy Keller

Luke (NRSV translation)

Read both with an open mind, see what happens.

Hello, English-speaking white boy here. I was baptized in a very well-educated OCA parish years ago and moved to my current city for work. Here there is only a Greek parish, a very ethnically Greek parish, so I understand what you are feeling.

The reason so many "ethnic" parishes exist in the Western world versus the missiological route taken by Sts Cyril and Methodius which offers services in a native language is because of the way the bulk of Orthodoxy arrived in the West.
Though there were missionary trips (check out "Orthodox Alaska" for a taste of the missions work among the native people), most of Orthodoxy came with the immigrants as their religion and their culture. Many people groups upon arriving in America settled into ethnic ghettos and though they had become part of the world's 'melting pot,' they were still very isolated. Their culture was still their identity and was passed down to following generations.

Much of my parish is still first-generation Americans and where I live, we don't get too many inquisitors about Orthodoxy because it's in the 'Bible Belt,' so this parish has remained mostly Greek in language. The current priest is an American-born Carpatho-Russian priest who has added some English, but on a 'good' day we're still at 80% Greek.

For all of the 'ethnic' parishes around there are plenty that offer services in English, whether OCA, Antiochian, Greek, ROCOR, etc. But, as my priest has to remind me when I jump on my "I want English!" soap box, the Greeks in our parish are just as much the sheep he has been entrusted with as we English-speaking people are. And (I am not speaking on a wide scale, I am simply stating from my particular parish), so much of their cultural identity is wrapped in Orthodoxy that if we abandoned the Greek, many in our parish would stop coming, even though they speak English.

It can be frustrating, but I have learned much of the liturgical Greek since arriving and since I know the Liturgy in English, the transition hasn't been too bad. Because I am not Greek, I do stand out a bit. The Greeks refer to me as "the Russian," though I'm not sure why. There are many who haven't spoken the first word to me in three years, but then again, there are many others who have welcomed me and tried to Greek me up a bit (though I still haven't gotten the taste for ouzo).

A unified American Orthodox Church is still a long way in the future, but it is something being worked toward. There is much to decide upon, much to sort out. I'm all for a uniquely American Orthodoxy (I would even propose our Liturgical chant be based on Sacred Harp, but that's just my opinion), but it will take time, lots of time, just like Orthodoxy around the world has required hundreds and thousands of years to take its place among the people.

Cool, so what’s your disproof of the possibility of miracles?

How would someone demonstrate the truth of the resurrection? I think that if you approach the question without assuming that the resurrection couldn’t have happened then that is the most likely answer: https://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-Historical-Evidence-Resurrection/dp/1579104649

Sure, but if we’re unsure then not having any historical claims makes it less verifiable.

I recommend "The Whole Christ" by Sinclair B. Ferguson, which talks about the challenging tension between legalism and antinomianism, among other things.

https://www.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Why-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01AIM65CQ

This book is a lot better than A Case for Christ http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493 , however if you read the god delusion then I would assume you know you can only be agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You cant just be agnostic, however personally I am an atheist because the concept of a soul seems dumb to me.

You could start with the book linked at the start of the article. Well, no, scratch that. It seems all copies on Amazon and AbeBooks (a database of thousands of used bookstores) now have only 6 total copies, selling for $470 to $9,999.

Start with this wiki overview, then scroll to the bottom and go through the many cited articles.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1401676707/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_BpmvCbAVGFXZY

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434704696/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_0qmvCbH2E153C

I just started reading his book "The Reason For God - Belief In An Age Of Skepticism.".

It seems well-written but I can't comment on the quality of his reasoning yet.

I don't know what you mean by "too fundamental".