Reddit mentions: The best religious criticism books

Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate the sincerity of your responses.

I agree that people do not need belief in a supreme being to be kind to each other, but this is where I think our worldviews will inevitably collide due to the nature of the different paradigms.

I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that the main theme of the Bible is God’s rulership or kingdom. According to the Bible, we were created to serve, honor, and glorify God, not ourselves.

In Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel is talking to self-righteous Jewish leaders, who believe in the afterlife and think they are going to enter heaven because of their good deeds. Ezekiel essentially tells them that God isn’t going to look at their good deeds, only at the things that displeased Him, and will judge them on that basis. The self-righteous Jewish leaders thought this was unfair, because they wanted their good deeds to be weighed against their bad deeds, and were convinced that they had done more of the good deeds. Now, Ezekiel essentially tells them that God is going to count the good deeds against them too. The Jewish leaders again responded by saying this was not fair. Then Ezekiel offered a solution—if they repent of their pride, self-autonomy, and desire to exalt the self, then God will disregard all the bad deeds and thoughts they had ever committed and had, and reward them on the basis of their good deeds.

So, why were their good deeds going to be counted against them? It is because those good deeds are done by the motivation of exalting the self, not God. The worst of all sins of humanity is the sin of pride, and Isaiah (ch. 64), who also spoke to self-righteous Jewish leaders, indicated that all these good deeds are like filthy rags to God, and He will be offending by them.

A major distinguishing factor between Christianity and the other religions is that other religions require people to perform good deeds in order to get into heaven, whereas Christianity focuses on the relationship of the individual to God. If the individual places God first and is dependent on Him, then he/she will be rewarded for the good deeds; if the individual is self-autonomous, then he/she will be judged.

So it is my relationship to God that motivates me to serve Him and others. Upon repenting of my sins and receiving Jesus Christ as forgiver and leader, my heart was transformed and I had new desires. Granted, being a Christian is no walk in the park, but there is this inner peace and satisfaction of living a life that is honoring to God.

After one repents and receives Christ as forgiver and leader, he/she is justified and undergoes sanctification, a life-long process that progressively shapes the person to know Christ and be conformed to His image. All believers are morally flawed, but you should see a decrease in their character flaws and sinful desires over time, especially if they are true to their discipleship.

In terms of the questionable acts that you listed, I can see how this can be unsettling at first glance, but those events and commands are specific to those individuals at those particular periods of time, and not for us to universalize or carry out. Additionally, those judgments are not evil, because God stood for goodness in the midst of bad, wicked, and reprobate individuals and societies.

• God decided to establish a nation—land, people, and government—to be entrusted with His word, to be a blessing, and to mediate between Him and other people.
  
• God gave His Law to Moses (Mosaic Law/Covenant), which further defined the government and the people (providing cultural guidelines).
  
• The Law also provided moral commandments, protection from spiritual and physical harm, and allowed blessings if obeyed.
  
  Today, we are in the age of grace and under the New Covenant.
  
  
• The New Covenant involves: 1) a new relationship with God in which laws are on the heart 2) complete forgiveness 3) giving of the Holy Spirit 4) national revival for Israel.
  
• We’re not rejected or accepted by how well we keep the Law; we’re saved by grace through faith. However, the Torah is still a valuable source of teaching.
  
  For a specific response to 2 Kings 2, please see Why did God kill 42 lads merely for saying Elisha was bald?
  
  And please let me know if you want more details about the trial of adultery, etc.
  
  Also, if you’re interested, the following resources might be useful:
  
  Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Dr. Paul Copan
  
  Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions by Kenneth R. Samples
  
  The Bible Fast Forward: Piecing Together the Biblical Puzzle
  
  Thank you for your message, and no offense was taken. I just want to let you know that my intent is not to re-convert you to Christianity or anything like that. I’m simply here to answer questions and provide reasons for the hope that I have. I know that the Gospel message is offensive enough.
  
  Best regards, and your thoughts are always welcome.
  

I apologize if I said hundreds of thousands of years. The events in the Bible seem to only cover the 4-8 thousand years leading up to Christ and the early church. No room for hundreds of thousands in there. What I meant to say is hundreds and thousands, though it would probably have been safer to say hundreds only. Many miraculous stories in the Bible and bookended by generations of Jews that experience no such miracles. My point was that miracles weren't necessarily a day to day occurrence in Biblical times either. When I used the parenting analogy I didn't mean to say that God has pulled back completely and is not present or active in the years since the early church. That would be bad parenting indeed! After Jesus ascended, Christians belive that God gave his Spirit to indwell his followers. This is an ongoing miracle for Christians who have experienced it and leaned on it. Christians definitely believe God is still active.
So now we're to the question about the flashy miracles like water into wine and resurrection of the dead. The point about the printing press and the internet is a common one. Why would the transference of information about Christ's miracles through one medium be superior to another? If the miracles happened pre-papyrus, we could wonder why the miracles didn't happen later during the age of scrolls. The miracles were recorded and shared not only orally but in book form in the gospels during the lifetimes of its eyewitnesses. What it really comes down to is: Why can't I see a miracle right now with my own eyes? And for that I fall back on what I wrote before. I don't know exactly and Christians differ. I personally think such revelation would undermine the free will of too many people. For the whole word to suddenly be made aware that God does exist and he is just as all powerful as ever, would lead to a mass conversion of people deprived of the chance to find God and instead motivated completely by fear. I doubt this is the sort of relationship God had in mind. Like I said before, using us to help the poor and the oppressed not only gets the job done for the victims but also grows us into the people He wants us to be.

According to the current Big Bang model, time, space, and matter all came into being at the Big Bang. The laws of physics and the universe deal exclusively with these three things. How could the law of gravity have existed before mass? How could the laws of electric fields exist before electrons? The laws of the universe are only applicable in a reality already containing time, space, and matter. Let's assume for a second that the fundamental laws DID somehow exist prior to the quantities they describe. Laws are abstract objects like numbers. Abstract objects can be helpful for describing the way things are, but they do not stand in causal relationship to anything (i.e. they cannot cause anything to happen or come into being).
Popular science articles do a great disservice when they talk about the possibility of something coming from nothing. The ideas you are referring to is evidence of atomic and subatomic particles 'popping' into existence from the quantum vacuum. This is highly misleading to laymen because the quantum vacuum isn't technically 'nothing'. It may not contain atoms or the subatomic particles we are aware of but it definitely contains energy fields and electromagnetic waves. From fluctuations in these energy fields it may appear that a subatomic particle 'pops' into existence but I can assure you that energy fields are not synonymous with 'nothing'. Nor is the quantum vacuum an accurate depiction of reality logically prior to the Big Bang. Before that first instance there was 'nothing', as in zip, no energy fields, no energy, no atoms, etc. There is still literally no theory for how something can come to exist out of pure nothingness and I wouldn't hold my breath either. Like the hypothesis of many worlds or other universes, scientific testing in this space is impossible. We have time, space, and matter at our disposal for testing which affords us no feasible glimpse outside of those realities. How can one use material tools (matter) to test or gain knowledge of a state prior to matter? Immaterial realities, such as the one prior to the Big Bang are unobservable which is the death sentence for scientific inquiry in that space. If you can't observe it, you can't test hypothesis. So now we're left with an immaterial cause of the material universe. It can't be natural laws of the universe because those describe the way things are inside the universe, not outside of it. So I ask myself, what is immaterial, powerful enough to create a universe, and intentional enough to create a universe fine-tuned to allow the evolution of life?

It's a good question to ask why all the supposed waste in the universe, volcanoes on limitless other planets, etc. Did you know that for the superhot early material in the Big Bang to coalesce into stars and planets and stable solar systems necessary for life that we should actually expect the universe to have grown as big as it has and be as old as it is? It takes so many years to get a stable universe like that and then so many more for a sentient species to evolve. Not only that but I think you assume I believe that God did it all for us! I think that would be arrogant of me. The Bible itself mentions other sentient species completely separate from humanity and earth: angels. They're usually thought of in Christianity as purely spiritual beings but who's to say they are? What if they had their own planet out there? What if God's plan is so much bigger than just us? The Bible is God's revelation to humanity, but it doesn't tell us even a fraction of all we'd like to know about God or the universe out there. For one thing, I don't think they make books that big. For another, if my hope in Christ is sound, enternity is a long time, and there's lots to see.

As for the laws of physics seeming violent and random, this is another case where we wouldnt have our stable solar system if it weren't for the violent and spectacular collision of stars and asteroids and life and death of galaxies. Think of forrest fires. They seem pointless and destructive, but they are necessary for new life to grow. Through the violence and the chaos, new seeds are released by the agitated flora which give the forrest a new lease on existence. There are fundamental forces and quantities in our universe that if, at the Big Bang, they had turned out to be the tiniest fraction different from what they currently are, that stars wouldn't have formed? Change another and atoms wouldn't form into molecules. There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the entire universe. The amount needed to change one of these quantities to make life impossible in the universe is something like 1 part in 10^120. Inconceivable!

As for an asteroid hurtling towards Earth, I'm not too worried. The Bible is fairly ambiguous about how the Earth is going to end so if it's by asteroid.. I guess that's as good a way as any. Regardless of how the world ends or how I die, I am confident in my hope that God will gather me into his presence and the real adventure begins.

Whew, this post is looooong (and possibly boring so I apologize). Alright, home stretch. Why do we have to live on Earth if the end goal is Heaven? There's something important I want to get out of the way first. According to Christianity, Humans aren't destined for Heaven. Earth was created to be the home planet of Humanity whom God wanted to know and enter into a relationship with. With our sentience and free will came our responsibility to take care of this planet. By ditching God and using the Earth for our own selfish purposes, we have made it into kind of a crappy place sometimes. The Earth was supposed to be our ultimate home for all time. By turning from God, Christianity teaches that humanity brought ruin not only to ourselves but the Earth as well. The whole thing needs God's healing. Once those who have freely chosen to accept and enact God's healing have died, the world as we know it will end and a new Earth will be made as the final home for those who freely entered into a relationship with God. Heaven, is more of a temporary location for souls as they await the end. The Bible is not entirely clear if the old Earth will be abandoned and new one created or if the current planet will simply be restored and made 'like new'. This is all my personal interpretation of Christian eschatology of course but it basically coincides with mainstream Christian thought. In the meantime though, this is the Earth we have. It is still our responsibility to take care of it and take care of it's people.

Alright so I hope I didn't waste too much of your time with this post. I should probably stop responding since the post length is growing exponentially. However I would like to point you towards some other materials if you are interested.

On the existence of God: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology - Various

http://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Theology-Companions-Philosophy/dp/1444350854/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341437104&sr=1-1&keywords=blackwell+companion+to+natural+theology

On Old Testament Ethics: Is God a Moral Monster? - Paul Copan

http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341437061&sr=8-1&keywords=is+god+a+moral+monster

Miscellaneous websites:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/ <--Ugly website but awesome man. Check the Q&A page.

I could list more, but the Bibliographies in these books will lead you to priceless resources on their own. Thank you for the questions, they were intelligent and clear.

p.s. I hope I rightly interpreted your 'dizzying intellect' line to be a reference to Princess Bride. Otherwise I probably just come off as a cocky jerk at the top of this post.

What you have done here, essentially, is dehistoricize Jesus by making him out to be the timeless preacher of agreeable aphorisms. While Jesus certainly conveyed a message of love and solidarity, to reduce the teaching of the historical Jesus to this alone is to (1) divorce him from the Second-Temple Jewish context, rife with eschatological expectation, in which he lived and which you acknowledge in your first paragraph; and thereby to (2) deprive his message of its depth and historical resonance.

Most New Testament historians will agree that the concept most central to Jesus' preaching was the arrival of the 'kingdom of God,' which, if N. T. Wright is correct in his series Christian Origins and the Question of God, was associated with the fulfillment of Jewish eschatological expectation. You propose that "if you and the people in your community lived in fear of things like being killed for gathering firewood on the Sabbath or being forced to marry your rapist... a traveling young rabbi by the name of Jesus is anything but ordinary," and while I find nothing objectionable in this proposition, I think you have forgotten the larger crisis for which the Jews desired a resolution. Yes, individual persons might have desired redress from particularly burdensome provisions of the Mosaic Law; but the Jewish people, in the Second-Temple period, collectively longed for an end to exile consisting in the return of YHWH to Israel in the establishment of the 'kingdom of God' and the inauguration of a new creation.

The Jews, in the centuries prior to the life of Jesus of Nazareth, had faced a series of existential crises: the Northern Kingdom had fallen, which led to the subsequent dispersal of ten(?) of the original twelve Israelite tribes in a diaspora; the Babylonians had taken Israel captive, destroying the Temple in which God's shekinah, his presence, was thought to dwell; and Israel itself had fallen subject to foreign domination, having been conquered variously by regional superpowers and eventually by the Romans. What the Jews were expecting in the late Second-Temple period was the reversal of all of these misfortunes, a reversal that had been prophesied by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, among others. They were anticipating the overthrow of their pagan subjugators, the ingathering of the exiled members of their nation, the absolution of their sins, the extension of blessing to the Gentiles, and, finally, the return of YHWH to Israel in the capacity of a ruling king, and they were anticipating that these things would transpire through the agency of a messianic figure.

Jesus' message must be situated within this context. Yes, he preached peace, love, forgiveness, and compassion, but he preached those things with the explicit intention of inaugurating the kingdom of God. You mention that Jesus made a point of welcoming those of the "the poor, weak, marginalized, and female class"; I want to ask, to what greater purpose?

If you notice, Jesus' miracles are performed as restorative actions among communities who were previously thought ritually unclean and thus excluded from 'Israel.' Lepers are unclean and thus excluded from Israel; he heals them. The woman who discharged blood was ritually unclean (even more, by physically touching her it was thought that one would be ritually defiled oneself); yet when she touches Jesus, Jesus does not become impure but rather she becomes whole. The blind, who again are not incorporated as full members of the community on account of their disability, are healed. Yes, Jesus is healing these people (1) because healing is itself objectively good and (2) because he wants to express a special solidarity with marginalized persons by affirming their dignity. But he is also doing something beyond that: he is re-incorporating into Israel people who previously were, to some degree or other, excluded from it. He is making Israel complete, ingathering the excluded, even conferring blessing to people not traditionally considered part of 'Israel' (by, say, healing Samaritans and Gentiles), and so is fulfilling Jewish eschatological expectations.

It is also generally acknowledged among New Testament scholars that Jesus stood, in some way or other, against the 'Temple establishment' and even pronounced threats against the Second Temple itself (to which the shekinah of YHWH was thought not to have returned following the Babylonian exile). In some sense, Jesus' opposition to the Temple establishment can be interpreted as an act of resistance to calcified authority, as taking a stand against legalism for legalism's sake; but it is more comprehensively, again, to be interpreted as the fulfillment of eschatological expectation. Jesus is quoted as claiming to be the Temple himself (see John 2:19); the point is that he believes the presence, the shekinah, of God to be returning to Israel in and through his person, for which reason the physical Second Temple and its governing authorities are no longer relevant.

So again, we see that Jesus does admirable take moral stances, but he does so precisely because he believes himself to be the person who is effecting the arrival of the kingdom of God—to be, in other words, the Messiah. His moral teachings, his parables, his call to practice mercy and forgiveness are all inseparable from this notion of inaugurating the kingdom of God. Jesus instructs his disciples to forgive others not only because forgiveness is good in itself but because the forgiveness of sins is characteristic of the utopian kingdom of God and in conformity with eschatological prophecy. He reaches out to the marginalized not only because marginalizing people is wrong but also because the coming of the kingdom is prophesied as the time at which Israel is again made complete, in which all its members are restored to it. To ignore this is to fail to see how "Jesus was a Jew preaching Judaism to other Jews."

Finally, to the notion of resurrection: in the Second-Temple period, members of the Pharasaic movement had come to believe that, in the eschaton, those who belonged to faithful Israel would be physically resurrected. This was theologically justified with appeal to God's love of his covenant people: if God truly loved faithful Israel, he would not simply let its members perish, but would restore them to bodily life. Within the scriptural context, death is understood as a destructive, aberrant force that mars God's good creation, and thus the kingdom of God, if it is to be the realization of all of God's intentions for Israel and the creation, is to be characterized by an overthrow of death. The point of Jesus' resurrection is that he is inaugurating the eschaton, that he is reversing the corruption of death in creation and thus fulfilling, again, eschatological expectation (notwithstanding the fact that the resurrection was not expected to occur to one person in advance of everyone else; the Pharisees believed, and their rabbinic successors today believe, that the resurrection will be a general resurrection of all of faithful Israel at once). It is all about the kingdom of God, the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, and the realization of God's purposes for creation.

>So to me, Jesus the man is just as worthy of following as Christ of faith.

>You're essentially saying that if Jesus was not resurrected then there's no point in trying anymore.

Morally good action would still be desirable, and Jesus' moral teachings would still possess independent truth-value, had he not been the Messiah. However, had Jesus had not been resurrected and his messianic claims not been vindicated through that event, it would have meant that he had failed in the essential task which he had set out to complete: he did not inaugurate the kingdom of God, and so is not to be recognized as Messiah. Perhaps it would be worth taking his moral advice, but it would not be worth placing one's faith in him as the person in whom God's promises to Israel and purposes for creation are realized. Contrary to your claim, then, taking the death-defying supernatural capabilities away from Jesus does, in fact, lessen his credibility.

For more information on the above-discussed subjects, I recommend N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God and his The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Answers!

>How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

Plantinga's free will defense (which most philosophers consider solving the problem of evil): http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H4

>What are your thoughts on the atheist argument of there being hundreds of gods, and that we only believe in one less than you?

It's not a very good argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5F-73eMSyA

>What about Yahweh specifically entices you to put faith in that one god out of the many other individual gods and pantheons to choose from?

Well, it's the person of Jesus that entices me. We see the heart of God most clearly in the person of Jesus Christ.

Please understand how broad this question you're asking is. There's not a very good way for me to go about answering it because, am I supposed to go line by line and say, YHWH vs. Allah. YHWH vs Krishna. YHWH vs __. You get the idea. Besides, there's already pretty good book about that, that was written by a man who was raised in Hindu India: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Among-Other-Gods-Christian/dp/0849943272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320956328&sr=8-1

> What is your opinion of the theory of evolution?

Evolution is fine. I'd imagine the people you met are fundamentalists, who don't understand that certain passages were written not as historical truth, but as mythic (which isn't to say false) allegory.

In other words, evolution is understood as a biological mechanism. God is the agent which started all natural mechanisms.

> A friend's father once told me, "I believe in God because it comforts me and because I want to believe that there is something more to this world. I can't back it up with evidence, and I probably can't convince you to believe, but it's good enough for me and that's all that matters." To this day, it is the most perfect explanation of personal beliefs that I have ever heard. He relies on faith and faith alone to keep his beliefs, and I have an immense amount of respect for that. Do you agree with him, or do you try to use physical evidence to back up your faith?

I disagree. Faith should have evidence; specifically evidence of things unseen. Jesus explicitly said his followers would be able to do works greater than he. I think that, in the west, Christians have settled for too long for a form of faith that lacks power.

As far as physical evidence is concerned, it's a funny question. On one hand, I don't think physical evidence is a good criteria for judging the truth of something. The positivists made that mistake in the 30's and then were debunked. On the other hand, if a blind man you knew was blind was healed before your very eyes, you wouldn't be able to deny the reality.

Those are my two cents slapped together in 5 minutes. Enjoy.

The thought that it's hard to conceptualize a ground for moral facts, whether natural or non-natural, is certainly something that motivates Mackie's argument from queerness. He does object to Hare's non-cognitivism, because he thinks that moral statements are meant to invoke moral properties, and fail to do so. Moral realists are also cognitivists, as are other error theorists like mackie. Most of these people, nevertheless, find it hard to conceptualize a grounding for moral facts. Indeed, this is a main reason naturalism is thought not to be very compelling, that it's much harder to conceive of a natural ground for moral facts than a non-natural one. Sharon Street, and as you pointed out, Ronald Dworkin make this point.

Parfit is not an anti-realist, he is a deflationist. He thinks there are moral facts, they are just non-metaphysical facts (like mathematical facts are).

>It's flagrantly circular to say rationality is determined by whatever a maximally rational being desires. So at most you could say that morality is determined by whatever a maximally rational being desires. But then you've done nothing to answer the big metaethical questions concerning rationality (in this normatively-loaded sense of the term): e.g. are judgments of rationality a matter of practical attitude, or do they make reference to some sort of ontology, and if so, what is the nature of this ontology?

Rationality is not determined by whatever a maximally rational being desires. Morality is determined by whatever a maximally rational being desires. This helps to explain the normative force of morality, because it helps us understand why it's rational to behave morally (if a being endorses your action who is perfectly rational, there seems to be very good reason to do it).

>Certainly not if it merely relocates all the big metaethical questions from one normative domain to another (equally problematic) normative domain.

Although normative properties generally are still weird, they are a lot less weird than moral properties. (It is a lot more difficult to see why something is rational to believe than it is to see why it is moral to do). Nevertheless, no moral theory is obligated to provide an account of all normativity (that's the job of a theory of normativity). If that were the case many arguments for moral realism wouldn't work (like Terrence Cuneo's comparison argument).

>I've read Firth and Brandt and Michael Smith, and I consider myself pretty well-informed about ideal observer theory, but I've never encountered "the algorithm analogy".

That's because I invented it when I responded to your post. It seems like it would be a good thing to use in an undergraduate class to make ideal observer theory compelling, but then again, I'm not a teacher.

>Where exactly do people in the literature compare the epistemic merits of moral intuitions with inferential claims about God's psychology? Are you saying that all inferential claims are ipso facto epistemically superior to all intuitions?

Well for starters there's a trivial argument that DCT offers a more reliable basis for morality than ethical intuitionism, namely that it's compatible with ethical intuitionism. So you could back up your intuitions with other stuff, whereas the person who is solely an ethical intuitionism has got nothing to back up their intuitions with.

Nevertheless, I did probably speak too soon in saying it's a general belief that claims about god's psychology are more defensible than claims stemming from intuition about morality. More accurately, most people seem to believe that in light of the objections to ethical intuitionism from cognitive science, claims about God's psychology are prima facie more reliable than intuitionist claims about morality.

The problem of divine hiddenness, for example, implies we know enough about God's character to have a sensible idea of how hidden he would be:

http://philpapers.org/rec/TRIGSA

A lot of religious knowledge also stems from authority, which is typically understood to be more reliable than intuition:

http://philpapers.org/rec/BENBOA-4

On reformed epistemology, knowledge of God is properly basic, which puts it on the level of belief in free will, which seems to be more well-founded than faulty intuitions:

https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195131932

But all in all, when you look at the language religious epistemologists and scholars of religion use, it certainly seems to be a language in which knowledge of God's character is presumed more reliable than an epistemology which looks like it fails. Of course, none of this amounts to an argument that knowledge of God's psychology is more reliable than moral intuition in general, and such would make for a very interesting paper, so thanks for the idea!

We have pretty similar tastes.

I'd start by suggesting a few more of Orwell's - Down and Out, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Homage to Catalonia.

Hemingway - There is another thread about him today, but I say go with the short stories to start. This collection is superb.

I got into Russian lit right around the time I finished all the books you mentioned. Crime and Punishment or some of Dostoevsky's many short stories could be a gateway into a whole new literature for you.

Some contemporary authors that are excellent - Margaret Atwood (start with The Handmaid's Tale), Salman Rushdie (writes incredibly vibrant and creative prose), Don Lee (I loved both books I've read from this newish author), Joyce Carol Oates (prolific and profound), Alan Lightman, Umberto Eco, Junot Diaz.

Great non-fiction - Read the rest of Jared Diamond's stuff, it's all great. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam by Tuchmann, a classic of how bad decisions led to downfalls in civilization. A Sideways Look at Time, a mildly rambly polemic on the politics of time in modern culture. The Closing of the Western Mind, a survey on how Christianity came to dominate the west. Power Faith and Fantasy about America's history of mucking about in the middle east. A Natural History of the Senses by Diane Ackerman, who write beautifully about the natural world, and is also a solid poetess (if you're into that). And I'm sure someone is going to mention Bryson. He's good too.

Granted the current Christian Trinity is an error. However, it can be traced back to Jewish angelomorphology and binitarianism. In Judaism, there were always "two Powers in heaven" - the high God, and his chief assisting angel, called "Israel's Great Angel" and "Yahoel".

The Great Angel was conceived to be "of God" - divine, but not ontologically God. Only the Father-creator was the single high God. But the Angel and his functional equivalents of the celestial Son of Man and the heavenly Messiah were thought to be "the Son of God", pre-existent, and having the role of being God's agent of creation. All of which fits with early Jewish Christian christology in that Jesus was regarded to have the Angel's functions of bearing the divine Name and executing the divine judgment. The Angel was the nascent Jewish form of what would later become the Trinitarian Son. Jesus himself identified with the heavenly Son of Man, who was to come in the clouds "with Power" and great glory. Thus, the earliest christology was both "High" and Jewish-monotheistic, but not Trinitarian. Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he calls his heavenly Father, "you, the only true God".

Two outstanding works on this subject are:

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israels-Second/dp/0664253954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518919003&sr=1-1&keywords=margaret+barker+great+angel

...and...

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=daniel+boyarin+jewish+gospels

Beyond the obvious choices, Watts' The Book, Ram Dass' Be Here Now, Huxley's Doors of Perception, Leary’s The Psychedelic Experience, and of course Fear and Loathing (all of these should be on the list without question; they’re classics), here are a some others from a few different perspectives:

From a Secular Contemporary Perspective

Godel Escher Bach by Douglass Hofstadter -- This is a classic for anyone, but man is it food for psychedelic thought. It's a giant book, but even just reading the dialogues in between chapters is worth it.

The Mind’s Eye edited by Douglass Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett – This is an anthology with a bunch of great essays and short fictional works on the self.

From an Eastern Religious Perspective

The Tao is Silent by Raymond Smullyan -- This is a very fun and amusing exploration of Taoist thought from one of the best living logicians (he's 94 and still writing logic books!).

Religion and Nothingness by Keiji Nishitani – This one is a bit dense, but it is full of some of the most exciting philosophical and theological thought I’ve ever come across. Nishitani, an Eastern Buddhist brings together thought from Buddhist thinkers, Christian mystics, and the existentialists like Neitzsche and Heidegger to try to bridge some of the philosophical gaps between the east and the west.

The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Nagarjuna (and Garfield's translation/commentary is very good as well) -- This is the classic work from Nagarjuna, who lived around the turn of the millennium and is arguably the most important Buddhist thinker after the Buddha himself.

From a Western Religious Perspective

I and Thou by Martin Buber – Buber wouldn’t approve of this book being on this list, but it’s a profound book, and there’s not much quite like it. Buber is a mystical Jewish Philosopher who argues, in beautiful and poetic prose, that we get glimpses of the Divine from interpersonal moments with others which transcend what he calls “I-it” experience.

The Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila – this is an old book (from the 1500s) and it is very steeped in Christian language, so it might not be everyone’s favorite, but it is perhaps the seminal work of medieval Christian mysticism.

From an Existentialist Perspective

Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre – Not for the light of heart, this existential novel talks about existential nausea a strange perception of the absurdity of existence.

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus – a classic essay that discusses the struggle one faces in a world inherently devoid of meaning.

----
I’ll add more if I think of anything else that needs to be thrown in there!

> You are making a huge assumption that the Bible is god's guide.

I am answering from within the parameters you gave me. You asked originally about JW's interpretation of Christianity. I think I am granted such assumption in the light of this fact.

> What about all those people who fervently believe the Koran or Old Testament (only) or the Upanishads or the Veda or any other holy book to be god's guide to man?

God will judge them, not me. My task is to spread His good news to them. If He deem them worthy of salvation, then they are worthy of salvation.

> Do you not pause and question what makes your holy book so special, what makes your holy book the true word of god? If other people believe in other holy books with as much you zeal as you do in yours, how can you tell your not falling into the same false belief as they are? How do you know you are following the true word of god and not some impostor?

I suggest Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief or C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity.

My argument for it is fairly simple. The God worshipped by the Christians is the same God that was already being worshipped when Ur was the most important city in the world. The other gods came and went, but He remained.

> If you are truly following the word of god (bible) and Hindus aren't (in general), shouldn't you feel god more?

No, why should I?

> Shouldn't god give you some indication you are on the right path as oppose to how you would feel if you were Hindu?

O, but He does! Truth will set you free, and that is your signal.

> That is like giving your children a test and then rewarding everyone who answered the questions equally regardless if they got it right, and then punishing those who got it wrong (punishment depending on your belief on heaven/hell can simply be having it somehow worse off in the afterlife then another person).

The destiny of mankind is to stay on Earth. No one will be 'worse off' than anyone else.

> How are any of your children supposed to know what the right answers (any 'lifestyle/faith' that gets you the best possible afterlife) are if you give everyone equal encouragement throughout the learning process and test?

There is no best possible afterlife. There is a simple hope of eternal life here on Earth.

> If Hindus can/will obtain the same level of afterlife as members of your faith, then again I ask, why are you spreading your faith?

Why do you tell your friends when something good happens to you?

>hat is the burden of proof, which you have either purposefully mischaracterized or are ignorant of. I did not say it lies on someone claiming something exists, I said it lies on someone claiming a positive. It is clear that the existence of god is a positive claim, and if you are unwilling to accept that I am interested why that is.


If I claim "The world outside my mind is real", that is a definitive positive statement.

Of course if you mean "positive statement" as "empirically verifiable" then the claim "God exists" is not necessaruly a positive statement as there are many truths (eg. mathematical truths) that are not necessarily empirically verifiable.

...

>you claim god to be everything that is, and that is your only claim, then this is just a semantic debate, but if you then go on to claim that god is the biblical god, you must prove this.

That's not what Ipsum Esse Subsistens means (it's not pantheism) and there is plenty of works that relate to the God of classical theism (which holds this position) to the biblical God.

Since, again, it's not a topic explored in a few sentences (or even a few pages really) I will direct you to Eleonore Stump's book on the subject.

...

>You have not provided an argument for the positive, and so there is not much to do here until you do. You have referenced many people but I think you are only writing so much to give an impression of credibility/intelligence rather than provide a direct case for God's existence.

As I said it's not a topic explored in a few sentences. I gave you the literature to explore.

Are you interested in learning something, or are you here just to win pointless debates on the internet? No one is going be convinced by a short proof one cuts down to size for reddit and I am not even going to waste my time on it.There are better ways to learn that and there are people who can explain it better than I could here, so I defer to them.

....

>are only writing so much to give an impression of credibility/intelligence rather than provide a direct case for God's existence.

Stop nonsense rhetorical tricks. Either put in the work and read the material or don't.

Point of a discussion might be learning something new, including learning about new literature on a topic one was completely unaware of before. If you think it's only about winning arguments, then have it you can win, if it makes you happy.

Some help:

Maybe Yes, Maybe No (LINK)

by Dan Barker

In today's media-flooded world, there is no way to control all of the information, claims, and enticements that reach young people. The best thing to do is arm them with the sword of critical thinking.

Maybe Yes, Maybe No is a charming introduction to self-confidence and self-reliance. The book's ten-year-old heroine, Andrea, is always asking questions because she knows "you should prove the truth of a strange story before you believe it."

"Check it out. Repeat the experiment. Try to prove it wrong. It has to make sense." writes Barker, as he assures young readers that they are fully capable of figuring out what to believe, and of knowing when there just isn't enough information to decide. "You can do it your own way. If you are a good skeptic you will know how to think for yourself."

Another book is "Me & Dog" by Gene Weingarten.

And Born With a Bang: The Universe Tells Our Cosmic Story : Books 1, 2, 3

Here Comes Science CD + DVD

The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins

Bang! How We Came to Be by Michael Rubino.

Grandmother Fish: A Child's First Book of Evolution
Grandmother Fish, free in PDF form online

Also:

Greek Myths – by Marcia Williams

Ancient Egypt: Tales of Gods and Pharaohs – by Marcia Williams

God and His Creations – by Marcia Williams

"I Wonder" by Annaka Harris

"From Stardust to You: An Illustrated Guide to The Big Bang" by Luciano Reni

"Meet Bacteria!" by Rebecca Bielawski

See also Highlights for Children - this has materials for younger children.

Atheism books for children by Courtney Lynn

"It Is Ok To Be A Godless Me", "I'm An Atheist and That's Ok", "I'm a Freethinker", "Please Don't Bully Me" and "I'm a Little Thinker" etc.

Courtney Lynn has a couple more for grown ups as well.

Grandmother Fish, free in PDF form online

A child's first book of evolution.

15 Holiday Gift Ideas for Secular Families

Bedtime Bible Stories by Joey Lee Kirkman - for mature teens only

Coming up: TINY THINKERS is a series of books introducing popular scientists to children, by telling their stories as if the scientists themselves were kids!

> One of the key differences that I mentioned earlier, between Buddhism and Science, is that a scientist's "no mind" isn't actually no mind; it's the distinction between relative and absolute truths

It's kind of interesting, but another saying in Madhyamaka thought is that the only absolute truth is that the only truths are relative truths. Or that the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. Gulp down the emetic. :) You might enjoy investigating that school. My impression is that you're pretty bright, and it's all about transformation that starts by turning the thinking mind against itself, in a way. This book is a good introduction, with commentary in the second half that's much easier to parse than the original text.

Hey there, thanks for posting your questions - they are questions many Christians struggle with, and they are questions many have found satisfactory answers to, I hope you do too ! You may get many answers to your questions, some of them contradictory. It's worth remembering that each of us is at a different part of our journey with God and those different answers are more reflective of our own human understanding rather than any issue with God.

Here's some answers from me for you.

1. I would say there is a lot of evidence for the resurrection. I could detail them but don't want to do a wall of text :) Check this page out. Josh McDowell is an apologist and has looked into this issue thoroughly. I recommend his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
   
   
2. I don't feel like it's a guessing game. There is plenty of evidence for God. But God still leaves us with a choice of whether to believe in Him or not. But for some people it takes time. It took me years to make that leap. Years where I carefully studied and sought God out deliberately. If we don't search for God, how can we say God isn't real?
   
   
3. They are wrong about certain beliefs, but there are also many similarities between the three major Abrahamic religions. I believe God has sheep in many flocks.(John 10:16).
   
   
4. Trinity is not polytheism because we don't believe that the God head is seperate from each other. This one deserves it's own post and I'm sure there have been many about it.
   
   
5. Different denominations understand the Bible, and to a degree God, differently. For instance, my denomination believes the Bible says the wicked will not suffer eternal torment and damnation. I can point to certain verses to support my view. But other people who believe differently could point to other verses. We congregate together with those who believe similarly because it makes worship and Bible study better, but I believe we are all a part of the worldwide fellowship of believers.
   
   
6. The Bible is clear that believing in Jesus is what enables us to be saved. If people knowingly reject Gods offer of salvation then they will be lost because there is no other way to be saved. I can answer more specific questions if you have any.
   
   Hope thats helped a little ! Blessings !

> While I certainly agree that there is value in looking at things in a new light to see a new truth, all too often people do not actually read the actual source material and instead read modern interpretations which are fallacious, and misleading.

Sounds like we'd get along. :)

In the Jewish tradition many English speaking practitioners happily accepted Michael Berg's translation of The Zohar as being canonical.

Luckily a scholar with more of an academic eye grounded in Aramaic named Daniel Matt was willing to spend the better part of a decade trying to capture the nuanced almost poetical nature of the texts for an English audience.

This gets to a point that I think Jorge Luis Borges perfectly described in his short story 'An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain' and 'Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'.

The first short explores the idea that the same book may tell many stories or that there is only one story iterated infinitely as a sort of synecdoche. The second portrays how translations are in many ways whole new works that never fully capture the original's essence, somewhat similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

To illustrate this look at a single simple Hebrew word that has shaped the better part of the last 2000 years of Western civilization: יֵשׁוּעַ. Most westerners think the correct pronunciation of this word is Jesus. Yeshua is far closer to the truth, but even then it doesn't entirely capture the full Hebrew vocalization on the vowels/nikkud.

How did this happen? The name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) comes from Joshua's Hebrew name, Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) which sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (e.g., 1 Chron. 24:11; Neh. 8:17). Yeshua, when transliterated into Greek, comes out as ᾽Ιησοῦς (pronounced YAY-soos), with the final sigma being necessary in the nominative case to designate a proper name. In old English, the "y" sound was rendered as "j," and thus we obtain "Jesus".

Put another way all interpretations and translations are necessarily corruptions.


> As an aside I have not read much re; Kabbalah, do you have a recommendation of a good book?

The tradition spans everything from neoplatonism, gnosticism, hermetica, to pythagorean mysticism. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say Kabbalah is the thread that ties together almost all of western esotericism.

There are a number of popular documentaries that give a general overview without being too inaccurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuSPtXG5dg

Rav. Michael Laitman's protege, Anthony Kosinec, does a nice job as well,

http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbalah-video-clips/kabbalah-revealed-a-basic-overview

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does a stellar job summarizing the traditional Jewish take on Kabbalah in his 1991 book "Inner Space." The book doesn't convey the feeling, however, of what it means to be really "in" the tradition.

The closest thing I think I can share to give a sense of what I'm getting at is this little paper.

Other than that though unless a person has any experience with lucid dreaming or out of body experiences, I am not sure anything I say will make any sense. Kaplan wrote two books, "Jewish Meditation, A Practical Guide" and "Meditation and the Bible", with the hopes that others could have the same sorts of lived experiences. Like anything, though, it requires a little practice. :)

Ok cool, I was genuinely asking since verses in Leviticus (like you posted) have differing contexts, audiences, time periods and all sorts of things compared to other passages on the topic of homosexuality or homosexual acts (of which there aren't many) say in Romans.


There are a couple things I'd say about this passage by way of giving some context which I think changes it.
1 - These are laws written to the people of Israel at a specific time in history. It is clear that God goes to great lengths to keep them distinct from the peoples around them as they are transmission point for the bulk of his revealed will so far. Their writings, history, and civic systems would form the foundation upon which God would point towards Christ 1300-1400 years after these books were written. There are a lot of things God forbids that are obvious in keeping the culture separate like intermarriage or certain political alliances. Others are more cultural like tattoos, certain foods, etc. It is my firm belief that this passage is speaking of all manner of things common in neighboring cultures who worshipped Moloch and similar deities. These cultures were pretty bad and God went to great lengths to keep Israel seperate from them. If you'd like to read more about Israel's relation to its neighbors through the Old Testament narrative I recommend "The Old Testament Against Its Environment by G. Ernest Wright. https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Against-Environment-Biblical-Theology/dp/B002EBGKTS/


2 - Despite point #1, many of the things are this list are part of God's moral will for our lives. Several things on the list go against how the God has made us according to the bible and thus are both wrong (IE a transgression worthy of punishment in an eternal sense) and harmful (IE something that will not satisfy or make one happy in the long run or hurts/defrauds others, sometimes both). I think it is the consensus of biblical text that the intention of our creator was for sexuality to exist on a man/woman spectrum. Some disagree with this but I think most biblical scholars would agree that the above passage most especially in its punishments for certain acts, is for a certain place and time and not an ongoing command of any type. It is important to not just do what the bible says but also emphasize what the bible emphasizes. Such a command to enforce any kind of morality regardless of the rightness of it is really foreign the bible. God is the enforcer, we aren't really called to do such a thing. We may disagree on what's God's moral will is for our lives (or whether there is a God or that his moral will is knowable), but I think the context here paints it in a much different light than "God says it's cool to hit gays with a rock". If you'd like to read further on the topic of understanding God's actions in the Old Testament, I recommend "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan. https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/


3 - The other important context here is God's redemptive plan for humanity. Why is it so important to keep this people group a certain way over time? What could be so important that you have these books full of civic and moral hoops to jump through with harsh consequences for non-compliance? The answer is that humanity has a problem, born seperated from God by the wrong things that we do, we are under the sentence of death and unable to deal with the punishment for our actions by a just God or the alienation between us and Him due to our sin. As I said everything about ancient Israel prepares for an points directly to Jesus, God's son who came to Earth as a human and died sinless to take the punishment onto himself. Having accepted this sacrifice we can not only escape the eternal consequences of our sin but also end the alienation between us and God and have a relationship with him. This is the moment where all of humanity, every person who has or will ever live on Earth, went from having the sentence of death hanging over them to the potential to live forever and have an eternal purpose. If you'd like to read more about this I recommend Romans Chapter 1:18-2:16,3:9-8:39.


The whole book is good but I've tried to exclude some sections as you are not, I assume, a first century jew living in Rome. I'd also recommend reading it in a more modern translation. It looks like what you posted is from the King James probably? That bible was really great in 1611 but since then modern archaelogy was invented and our greater access to older texts and evolution of better historically grounded textual scholarship means that many many versions are better. I personally like the New American Standard Bible which tries to be more of a "word for word" translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in the text. It can sound a bit like Yoda so if you'd like a "Thought for Thought" translation the New Internation Version, New Living Translation, and English Standard Bible are all fine.


This might be more reply than you're looking for but at least we can agree that Twitter is perhaps not the best place for something so complex. :D Also sorry for a hastily written reply, I didn't think I'd be discussing Leviticus today.

> [W]hat makes Christianity the right religion?

I think the arguments for God's existence are strong enough to eliminate all but the major monotheistic religions as candidates for truth, and among these religions I think argument for the unique revelation of the Christian God in the person of Jesus is strong enough to identify Christianity as the most plausible. Christianity presents a coherent worldview and conforms most closely to the reality of our existence.

Ravi Zacharias has addressed this issue far more eloquently than I can in his book Jesus Among Other Gods. If you want a comparison with non-theistic worldviews, he's also written Jesus Among Secular Gods.

> Are Muslims going to hell?

If the claims of Christianity are true and if Muslims do not believe that Jesus is both God's Son and the single effective path to salvation, then yes. If Christianity is not true, then I don't have an answer.

> Why does the Christian god doom 1.8 billion people by birth?

The answer here probably depends on how you conceive of God's foreknowledge. For example, Molinists would hold that God knows how everyone will freely respond to his offer of salvation in any possible circumstance. One could then argue that God therefore places every person who will respond positively in a particular region where and time when they will eventually be granted that opportunity to respond.

Another angle is that even in so-called "closed" countries, the internet is still reaching millions of Muslims every day. And in the absence of the internet, we now read many stories of Muslims having vivid dreams or visions of Jesus. If such dreams are from God, it would appear that Muslims are not "doomed" by their place of birth after all.

You've read "Warranted Christian Belief" by Plantinga (did you? or something else?) and it didn't answer sufficiently for you most of the questions in your stated OP? ... I'd have a hard time coming up with something better from a philosophical or natural perspective on belief.

I mean, a read through The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict might be a good starting point that's a pretty thorough excerpt from a historical authenticity point of view (scriptural etc. although it's mostly a rehashing and collection of other author's arguments and evidences). I found a lot of personal interest in Pensees by Blaise Pascal - but it's not well organized as it's his collections of personal journaling.

The one bit of info I can offer more than anything is that reading a book is a good way to get your head around a concept that doesn't require action or emotion - but Christianity is such that you need to experience both the intellectual pursuits and corrections of the Bible and the emotional connection with God and his church to really understand it. Go to a local church and ask the pastor/priest why and how they ended up in their position. Go to different churches and get some varying stories. I find that people tend to give more honest reflections of their beliefs when they are physically present than in writing which is carefully combed over and worded for a specific audience. It's only one directional. If you interact, I hope you find some people that can give you a more honest perspective on why Christianity makes sense. -- And I do really mean in person. Reddit is a great source for things, but personal contact is so much more rich.

These are four books and a lecture series that would certainly be good at getting you started, all of them are academic rigor level, so not something that you'll be able to flip through at the bus stop. They take a bit of time to digest.

• Evidence that Demands a Verdict- good summary of the reasons we have to think that Christianity is historically true.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
  
  
• Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology- Natural theology, the arguments from reason for why we have good reason to think that there is a God. Written by academic philosophers.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
  
  
• Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview- Another excellent book providing a systematic narrative from the ground up.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
  
  
• New Essays on Divine Hiddeness- If God is real, then why doesn't he just appear to me? This collection of essays from both atheists and Christians explores that argument and offers (what I think) are some pretty good responses.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
  
  
• Faith and Reason Lectures by Peter Kreeft- Excellent lecture series by a philosopher who approaches the topic of religion from an introductory level and takes the time to examine the arguments for and against. A great place to start since it covers everything from a general perspective.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI

There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't understand something and trying to figure it all out. I obviously don't know you or your personal story but if you are interested in the philsophical/theological foundations of Christianity I'd recommend you look into the following:

• Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas, the single most comprehensive work of systematic theology and the pinnacle of Medieval Scholasticism
  
  
• Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity by Karl Rahner A fantastic introduction to Christian, specifically, Catholic theology and philosophy
  
  
  
• God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga One of the major texts in PoR regardingt he logical problem of evil.
  
  
• The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers by Eleonore Stump Stump is one of the world's leading PoR and Thomists and this short lecture helps establish both the philosophical notion of the God of Western Monotheism and the God of CHristinaity specifically
  
  
• Philosophy of Religion by John Hick Another fantastic introductory text to PoR.
  
  I'd probably start with Hick for the groundwork and then move outwards into various other works which he recommends as further reading when something catches your fancy.

New username here. It's been a while since was in the literature on these issues, but I got my degree in Phil & Religion under a guy whose adviser was Plantinga and I heard Plantinga give a conference presentation on what became his Warrented Christian Belief. The school I went to was a heart of Pressup Apologetics, since Gordon Clark, who in addition to Van Til, was a founder of the movement, although Val Til was taught more. So I did papers on Van Til and his successor John Frame, but did read some books by Clark on other subjects.



>Upvote for a thoughtful and detailed answer. I suppose I still can't come to see past what I perceive is circularity.



The best critique I know of Plantinga's "proper basicality" is by Tyler Wonder and you can hear him talk about it in pretty good detail over at Common Sense Atheism. He did his PhD on this so he's worth paying attention to, even if I can't say that his argument goes through.



>I can't accept Plantinga's response to the Great Pumpkin objection, because he never offers criteria for proper basicality (other than the vague idea that it occurs only in the "right circumstances").



Well, as far I understand, providing a strict criteria would reintroduce the very problems that make Classical Foundationalism self-defeating by ruling itself out. That's why grounding beliefs by way of Virtue Epistemology helps retain the foundationalist structure. And VE doesn't permit just any belief, but it must grant that our cognitive faculties are generally reliable, which is also self-defeating if denied. And I think cognitive science can support this, yet Plantinga's reasoning goes back to Thomas Reid's "Common Sense Realism" (which was in response to Hume).



>If I am understanding him correctly, Plantinga essentially says that a properly basic belief requires some grounds for belief, but to me, this sounds awfully similar to a demand for evidence.



It's not evidential because, "properly basic" beliefs are known directly without appeal to inferences (memory-based beliefs, for example, are direct, not built on anything but memory). They just aren't indubitable.



>Sure, perhaps a properly basic belief needn't be an a priori belief (esp. in weak foundationalism), but Plantinga, to my knowledge, has not provided any means of distinguishing between one thing or another.



This is where Virtue Epistemology and a Reidian-based rendering of cognitive faculties comes in.

This reader has a beautiful breadth of authors; from Chladenius to Gadamer/Habermas/Apel. I'd def. read some smaller/older/romantic figures such as Chladenius, Schlermacher, and Dilthey.

From Heidegger, I'd somewhat avoid Being and Time, maybe look into Hermeneutics of Facticity instead. I'd also suggest looking into Husserl's influence on language and how that developed into a hermeneutics (Such as Hermeneutics and Reflection: Heidegger and Husserl on the Concept of Phenomenology).

I'd also consider going through Ricouer's Hermeneutics or On Interpretation. Recently Kearney is a major figure, his On Stories is phenomenal (as /u/MegistaGene suggests).

Personally, I'd also throw in some more recent 'applied/topical hermeneutics'. Books by either Kearney or Brian Treanor are brilliant.

• Carnal Hermeneutics,
  
• Hermeneutics of Nature (Either Interpreting Nature or Being-in-Creation are brilliant, though the latter has a much more religious emphasis),
  
• Hermeneutics of Religion (Kearney's Strangers, Gods and Monsters or The God Who May Be are amazing).
  
• Hermeneutics of Culture (There are a lot of works on the hermeneutics of race and gender, one that I really enjoyed was Slaves, Women & Homosexuals.
  
  Along side the other suggestions, as well, I'd definitely look into a bit of Philo, Augustine, or that crowd. They provide a fantastic background for the field's development (Grodin's Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics is a fantastic secondary source for this kind of stuff).
  
  Looking through the bibliography of the SEP page might give you more ideas! I hope the directed studies goes well!

I haven't read it, but I've only heard great things about How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth, for Gorden Fee and Doug Stuart.

Also, The Last Word, by NT Wright is excellent. It's not necessarily a book strictly about interpreting the bible, but more of a theology of the bible, so to speak. Reading Wright's work has given me a lot more appreciation for what the bible is, which helps a lot with interpreting it.

Are there any particular issues you're interested in, or any books you'd specifically like guidance with? I've got a final suggestion, that deals with making sense of some of the commandments in the old testament. It's called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, by William Webb. It's an excellent approach to the old testament that reads it in light of the New Testament and is able to make sense of the hard commandments without pretending that they don't exist.

You have to have a good understanding of what "evidence" means.

Think of a courtroom. The prosecution provides evidence as well as the defense. Then it's up to the jury to decide whether a reasonable person would conclude that the evidence, for or against, is reliable.

It's the same way with the Bible. I can give you tons of evidence regarding the Scriptures, external consistency, internal consistency, textual reliability, etc. This evidence you will either believe, or not believe. But based on the way you asked the question, my assumption is that you will not believe ANY evidence I provide for you.

Another factor is the fact that God doesn't deal in "factual evidence" so much as He deals in "faith". Faith is the currency that God honors. Now that doesn't imply that we are to have "blind faith". God provides plenty of foundations for that faith. But if we are willfully blind, then there's nothing He, or anyone, can do to provide "proof".

For example: I could show you a rock formation which looks amazingly like it had been placed there through a cataclysmic flood (proof of the flood of Noah's day). Others will see that same formation, and conclude it must have been put there through millions of years by erosion.

Or I can show you the structure of a human eye. On one hand, one can see beautiful, and practical design as well as complex optical machinery. Someone else will see the same thing, and conclude it must have come about through millions of years of "selective processes" resulting in a complex organ.

And so on.

The point is, there is no amount of evidence I could provide you which will convince you that the Bible is reliable. If you want a good reference, read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He provides proofs (with sources) on why the Bible can be trusted, even in the small things.

Do I believe that God was there? Yes, by definition, God is eternal, and He was there when it happened.

I see. Well this distinction I'm making between doctrinally defining oneself by the Bible alone vs seeing parts or all of the Bible as literal is not going to be very relevant to the surveys you linked (because it's not what they're looking at). But it is important to Christians. Taking the Bible as the definition of one's doctrine is one step beyond taking it literally. To go back a step, one must first address the doctrinal issue.

In America, yes, the Biblicist stance about doctrine is much, much more common than elsewhere (also in South American countries, randomly, according to some stuff I've read). But the reason I assert it as a minority opinion is because American Christians of this ilk often think they are just being Merely Christian the way most Christians are. So this is the misconception I like to address first.

To make myself clearer: The doctrinal issue is when Christians say things like, "We just teach what the Bible says, nothing more," or, "We just need to look in the Bible to answer all these questions," or, "How could this be wrong? It's the Word of God! It's right about everything."

The literalist issue, however, is when Christians say things like, "The world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days because the Bible says so," or, "A worldwide flood can only have meant that the whole planet was flooded and absolutely nothing else because that's what the Bible says," or, "The planet must have quit rotating at least once in history because the Bible says that the sun literally stood still."

Now, the difference is that one can take everything literally (which is a contentious issue itself), without thinking that they 'just believe what the Bible says' when it comes to their faith. They may still think that the only way to understand the literal truths in the Bible is through the lens of doctrine developed by the clearest of reason relying upon the guidance of God so they don't simply rely upon the Bible to define what they believe for them.

While, especially in the States, one can definitely find these two paradigms overlapping--I'm simply saying that the first issue I'm dealing with is the doctrinal one of relying upon the Bible as the actual Word of God (Which, IMO, is not historically nor orthodoxically Christian). Once this step is made, views about the necessity of the Bible being literal may very well evaporate, transform, or simply become less important. I can, at least, personally verify that I know many Catholics, Orthodox, and other Mainline Protestant traditionals who do not hold Scripture to be the actual Word of God while still taking much the Bible literally themselves, but consequently don't make too much of deal about it since it's not what their faith relies upon.

As a Christian, I want to tell Christians that their faith can only rely upon a God that exists right here in now if they presume to have faith in such a thing, and not some text. An excellent book for American Christians that addresses the doctrinal issue of Biblicism (which, consequently, affects the literalist issue) is the following from a well know Christian sociologist: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Made-Impossible-Biblicism-Evangelical/dp/1587433036

It argues that the view I've spoken against is literally self-contradictory when it comes to approaching the Bible and cannot be conscionably held, especially if one claims to be an Evangelical. It's a well-written scholarly work held in good opinion, if you actually have some people you'd want to suggest it to.

> just read the wiki on the "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā", which seems pretty enlightening; though am a hardcore philosophical-theorist

I just looked over the wiki page and it seems pretty esoteric. The MMK is pretty hard-nosed philosophy when you get down to it. If that approach interests you, you might like Buddhism as Philosophy as a short, more down-to-earth overview of this, along with a bunch more topics from the tradition. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way seems to be recommended a lot around here if you're at all interested in diving into a translation/commentary.

> Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Sure thing.

>You cannot separate the old and new testament as the word of God. If you believe one, you believe the other, and one is so full of death, destruction, anger, hate, and just plain vile stories that it simply cannot be divinely inspired.

I agree with you in that they are the exact same God. The God of the new testament and the God of the old testament, so if you believe in one, you believe in the other because they are one in the same. I'm not going to try to explain it, because it's such a broad topic, and I don't feel I have a good enough command of the english language to get my point across, but I can believe the actions of God in the old testament can be fairly easily rectified. This book helped to reconcile my beliefs when I needed answers about the very same topic. And after a quick google search, I found this a youtube video of a radio interview with Paul Copan, the author of that book.

As far as being good without God, from a worldy view, this is definitely possible, but not so much from a Christian view. There is nothing good in me. On my own, I am capable of no good need. I am human, I am corrupt, and evil by nature. God is the only thing in me that is good, and every time I complete a good action, it is solely because of Him. In a secular sense, you can be good without God, because even though you may not believe in God, you still live in His world. There is still an ultimate moral standard, that everyone agrees upon, yet has no natural explanation. You can most certainly have more 'goodness' than a christian from the perspective of completing more 'good' acts.

I don't believe God stacked the evidence against Himself when he created the universe. There is just as much scientific evidence for biblical creation, as there is for a natural creation. In fact, it's the exact same evidence! The evidence that atheists use to proclaim the nonexistence of God, is used by Theists to proclaim His existence! The same evidence is just interpreted differently by two different groups of people. The problem is, everyone has a world view, so it's impossible to look at the evidence and be completely neutral. If you begin examining the evidence believing one thing, you will most likely draw a conclusion similar to your prior beliefs. A world view is like a colored lens. If you wore green glasses everywhere, you might suspect everything is green. Not because it is, but because the glasses make it seem so. So really the proof in whether or not there is a God, comes down to determining which world view is correct. Fortunately, all world views separate from Christianity conflict themselves somewhere, thus proving they can't be the 'correct' view. Most of them lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't be able to know anything about the universe that we live in, or that day to day actions of anyone without God, are completely unexplainable. This is because Christianity is the only world view that can accurately account for the preconditions of intelligibility, or the conditions that must exist before we can know anything. Atheists cannot account for these conditions, and have to actually rely on the Bible, before they can argue against it. I'm not going to give a super thorough explanation here, but I would suggest looking into Presuppositional apologetics, and the preconditions of intelligibility.

tldr; There are millions of us that feel the same way. I hope you don't forsake Christ in name in response to those around you who are forsaking Christ in deed.

__

I'm writing this during a break at work. Since I have to make it quick, I'll be recommending a lot of books. There is really too much here anyway to do justice to all of the questions you've put up, so even if I were to give a real, detailed response, I would probably have to resort to suggesting books anyway.

> 1.) I don't think that all of the Bible can be taken literally. I strongly believe in the sciences, so I think that Genesis was written either metaphorically or simply just to provide an explanation for creation. Are there others here that believe that or something similar? How do others respond to your beliefs?

There are many, many, many others who believe similarly. And not just recent people responding to evolution, there has long been a tradition of taking Genesis metaphorically. For a good group of scholars and prominent Christians that take a stand for a reading of Genesis that respects the way that science currently understands origins, see the Biologos Forum.

For a good book that shows the error of inerrancy, how it stunts your growth as a Christian and a moral agent, and how inerrancy limits either human free will or God's sovereignty see Thom Stark's excellent new book The Human Faces of God.

> 2.) Why does it seem that Christianity is such a hateful religion? I am very disappointed in many Christians because they spew hatred towards other instead of spreading love. I think that the energy that is going into the hatred that many spew could be used for good. Why aren't we putting these resources towards helping others? This would help bring people in instead of deter them away.

Again, millions of us feel the same way. It makes me sick as well. However, I don't think the answer is forsaking Christ in name in response to others forsaking Christ in deed.

There are many strands of the Christian faith that have strongly opposed violence of any sort. Look into the Anabaptists, the Mennonites. Podcasts from Trinity Mennonite are pretty good.

For a good book about Jesus and nonviolence see Jesus and Nonviolence by Walter Wink.

> 3.) How can people be against gay rights still? This is clearly religious issue and not an issue of morality. If you choose to follow the parts of the Bible that are against homosexuality, then why do you not feel the need to follow many of the other ridiculous laws that are in the Old Testament?

I'd like to stress that, again, there are millions of us that feel the same way. And many, many of those who still believe it's a sin think that we have no place emphasizing that in a world where LGBT teenagers are killing themselves from the humiliation. There are many, many of us that think that whether their lifestyle is "sinful" or not the only thing we should show them is love.

For more about interpreting the Bible in light of today's social issues, see Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb and Sex and the Single Savior by Dale B. Martin.

> Do you believe that the government has the right to say who can and cannot get married? Why can't this just be left up to each individual church?

I'm actually strongly in favor of civil unions for everyone. I wholeheartedly agree that I don't want the government defining marriage... and the only way for the government not to define marriage is for the government to take its hands off marriage altogether; whatever the sexual orientation of those getting married.

> 4.) This was a question that I was asked in my other post that I was unable to answer.

Yes, the penal satisfaction view of atonement has its shortcomings. It's not a completely bankrupt idea, but it takes a lot of nuance to convey it in a way that isn't altogether abhorrent and senseless.

The first Christians believed something similar to what we call today "Christus Victor" atonement.

For a picture of the varied atonement theories available for understanding what Jesus did on the cross, see A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight. For a list of ways to understand atonement in a contemporary context, see Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross by Mark D. Baker. For more on a view of God that is consistent with the love of God as revealed in Jesus, see Rob Bell's Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person that ever lived.

> 5.) I asked this in the other post, so I feel that I should ask it here. How many of you do or will teach your children about other religions? Will you present them as options or will you completely write them off?

I'd be wholeheartedly open to exposing them to other religions. And I'd want to do it in a way that does them justice. Most Christian "worldviews" books frustrate me due to the way they portray other's religions. In the long run if you don't accurately portray the rest of the world and you try to shelter your children from it, they'll simply feel betrayed when they grow up and finally learn what's out there.

I believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I actually believe this. Why wouldn't I try to raise my children as Christians?

But again, I wouldn't want to misrepresent the other religions and I certainly wouldn't want to shelter my children from them. For a book that I feel shows the good from many of the world's most prominent religions, see Huston Smith's The World's Religions.

I don't know how valuable that would be without more context. The Diamond Sutra would probably give a little better base if you're interested in Prajnaparamita text. The Heart Sutra is sort of an abbreviation of the teachings. The Diamond Sutra says a little bit more, but it's probably very different from what you've been discussing and would still probably hard to appreciate coming just from a western philosophical context and without a meditation practice.

The Mulamadhyamakakarika, specifically this version with a very good commentary by a professor of philosophy seems to me like it'd be a better fit for your sub given what you've been studying. It's about using thought to see through thought, but with a framework and especially with a commentary that would probably be better suited to someone coming from Western philosophy, provided you can catch yourself if you start dismissing arguments because they challenge things that seem self-evident. It's more analytic, but it argues against the tools of analysis in a way, so it can be tricky.

There's a neat article that talks a little bit about it here. I'd be interested in hearing what your group thinks about it if you ever cover it. Please let me know if your sub ever decides to look at it.

>> If the system contains all the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce the next iteration of that same system, then the next iteration should occur instantly.
>
> How do you figure?

This you really have to sit down and think about. I know this might come off as me being a dick, but it cannot be elaborated further, since I already verbalized it on the level of 1+1=2.

I'll give it one more try, and if you don't understand this analogy, I am out of options. Mind you, this should in no way be superior to what I already said, it's just slightly different and who knows, maybe this one will grab ya.

Forget physics for a second and instead think of a computer. In the computer we roughly have a CPU and memory. CPU is capable of performing instructions which are stored in memory. The memory contains some instructions for the CPU. And here I am hoping you know that most CPUs are clock-driven. Now, in terms of programmatic logic, between the CPU and the memory, computer has all that's both necessary and sufficient to produce the next iteration of the CPU and memory state from programmer's POV (because programmers do not control the clock signal, and are generally not aware of it except vaguely, that's hardware engineer's job). However, the iteration will not happen without a clock signal to the CPU. Furthermore, the iteration will happen as quickly or as slowly as the speed at which clock signal's state toggles. So in a computer system a clock signal is a necessary condition to move the iterations forward. So in truth, the CPU+memory's state is necessary but insufficient without a clock signal to reach the next iteration.

(Curiously for a single program the speed of clock signal doesn't matter, because to a single program the computer is an inescapable environment. But if you have a situation where there are computers inside other computers and each one has their own clock signal, then ultimately these discrepancies in clock signals will become detectible. And modern computers do have parts that have their own clock signals, so in reality a clock signal can potentially affect how well the program will run or if it will run at all.)

Now back to normal reality. Consider that normal reality is similar to a state inside a computer. If that state logically had in itself all that's necessary and sufficient to produce the next state, then the next state logically should happen instantly. Any delay suggests insufficiency.

If you spend some time on this contemplation you should be able to understand it. What this demonstrates is the following: because we do experience time, no system is sufficient to self-evolve. In other words, all systems lack self-sufficiency. This lack of self-sufficiency manifests as time to us. It perhaps manifests as other things as well, but time is what we can perceive most readily.

Now I can give you reference to Nagarjuna, but Nagarjuna is even more imponderable than anything I said. He spoke tersely and cryptically to those who are on the same level as he and I've explained everything in plain English so that hopefully anyone can understand. Still, if you want to study Nagarjuna, I suggest you get Jay Garfield's translation of Mulamadhyamakakarika. Give it a read, then if not satisfied, I suggest you contact Jay personally. I'm guessing he will make time for a cosmologist. :)

And here's an online translation by a different translator.

Here's the section on time. Give it a read if you like and tell me if that's more comprehensible than what I explained and why so.

>Because information can not travel faster than the speed of light(both experimentally verified, and something that emerges naturally from physics)

Aren't you assuming things here?

Let's go back to philosophy for a second. Remember that no datum stands alone. There is no naked evidence. Instead all evidence is interpretative. All evidence is contextualized by the state of our own mind. So when the evidence "suggests" something, the correct understanding here is that it's not evidence that suggests something, but rather "evidence+interpretation" that suggests something. For most humans this interpretative process is tacit and subconscious. For someone like me, much of it has become conscious because that's the work I do on my spiritual path. For most mundane living it's completely unnecessary to dig into your subconscious and to see what sorts of hidden and tacit assumptions you live with. In fact even to do most physics as a science you don't need to dig into your subconscious. You can just roll with all your assumptions, including many many metaphysical assumptions about space and time, the nature of observation, the nature of intent, and so on. People are fundamentally unfair and meddling observers. And I don't mean bias. I don't mean a mere confirmation bias. I don't mean something slight and small and easily correctible here.

To verify the speed of anything you need to have faith in the rhythmic and even constancy of some pattern. Why so? Because you need a clock of some sort. We tell time by signs and marks, remember? Without signs and marks, there is no perceptible time.

In other words we can say that you measure relative speed and relative time. You never measure absolute anything. All quantities (and qualities) are relative, and therefore environmental. (see my flair, btw).

>Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, this criticism is universally applicable. If your original claim is that cosmology is distinct from the rest of science in some way, this claim can not be made in support of that one.

I'm going to wrap this thing up now. Here's what I want to say about cosmology. Cosmology compared to other sciences makes more inferences. For example, you look at 3 pixels of something that's billions of light years away and you conclude based on those 3 pixels that there is a black hole there or you measure the temperature of the object based on the color of those few pixels, etc. This sort of thing seems to happen pretty regularly. This wouldn't be happening in classical physics, but perhaps this exact "stretching" of the evidence happens in molecular and subatomic physics too, etc. There are tons of tiny little implicit assumptions floating in the subconscious minds of the physicists. Which is human and healthy. But it does affect the results you get.

So my point is, the process of science is different from the process of spirituality (forget religion, since religion often is absurd) only by degrees. There is no fundamental difference. Science is a solipsistic endeavor in the end, if you think about it. It can only be reviewed by peers. It's a pretty insular and elitist system by design.

Science is a beautiful thing. And it's highly useful. But so is genuine spirituality. And the difference between them is not as great as it appears to most scientists. They're both human endeavors with all that's implied.

> If you're talking about a phrase in the Bible saying something like "great powerful nations will go to war" being prophecy of WWII or something like that, well I don't know if that's worth my time to discuss quite frankly.

Not at all. That is what I'd call a Nostradmus-like prediction that is so vague it almost certainly could be considered to have come true. The Koran is filled with those.

Some very specific prophecies in the bible:

• The manner of Jesus' death (crucifixion) predicted hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented
  
• The precise number of years the Jews would be exiled to Babylon (70).
  
• The exact number of years (483) between the year the decree made by the future king of Persia to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem until the year Jesus was born
  
• The fact that the eastern gate of Jerusalem would be closed until Jesus' second coming (it was walled up by Saladin and remains walled up to this day)
  
• The precise town that Jesus would be born in (Bethlehem) made hundreds of years before he was born. Interestingly, Jesus' parents were not from Bethlehem they famously traveled there to find no room at the inn (you know the story). Also, there were two towns called Bethlehem in Israel at the time. The prophet Micah accurately predicted which one Jesus would be born in.
  
• The fact that what is now Russia and Iran (formerly called Persia) would form a military and economic alliance. This has just happened over the past 10 years as Russia has sold military equipment to Iran and helped design and build their nuclear plants. Prior to 2004 Russia and Iran/Persia had never had any type of economic or diplomatic relationship.
  
• The Bible accurately predicted the name of the Persian King (Cyrus) who would overthrow Babylon hundreds of years before Cyrus was born.
  
  There are actually hundreds of precise prophecies like this throughout the Bible. Neither the Koran nor the Hindu scriptures have any such internal proofs that they came from an all-knowing diety.
  
  To be honest without being critical... you say you've read the Bible. But if you think the prophecies in it are as vague as "great and power nations will go to war" then you really haven't read it.
  
  Thanks for the offer, but honestly I spent over 5 years studying this and at this point I am very secure in my beliefs. I've read plenty of books on both sides of the issue and am no longer a seeker. I am confident I have found the truth. I hope you value yourself enough to do such an in-depth investigation. For almost 20 years I insisted I was right about Christianity being a joke. But I found out I was wrong. I think you'll find the same if you give it a similar test.
  
  And I'll make a counter offer to you. If you'll agree to read Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" I'll buy it for you.
  
  EDIT: I'll buy it for anyone who wants a copy. Just PM me your contact info and I'll buy it and send it to you.

Thanks for the response. I'll give a sparce reading list, as I find it pretty extensive.

Zizek:

• The Puppet and the Dwarf
  
• The Fragile Absolute
  
• The Neighbor
  
• The Idea of Communism
  
• Paul's New Moment
  
• The Monstrosity of Christ
  
• Theology and the Political
  
  Zizek has plenty of essays and talks floating around as well, but these books are probably the best--the first and second are the most sustained, the third is a lengthy essay making use of theological resources. The fourth contains essays by Eagleton, Vattimo, and Badiou. The fifth is one where he dialogues with theologians about St. Paul. The sixth is a debate with a theologian about theology. The final is a great collection of people all across the board, mostly Marxists, dealing with theology.
  
  Vattimo:
  
  
• Hermeneutic Communism
  
• After Christianity
  
  Eagleton:
  
  
• Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
  
• The Gospels: Jesus Christ (Revolution)
  
  Eagleton also specializes in short and helpful articles.
  
  Badiou:
  
  
• Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism
  
  Misc. Authors too extensive to list:
  
  
• Jean-Luc Nancy
  
• John Milbank
  
• Graham Ward
  
• Simon Critchley
  
  
  Secondary Literature:
  
  
• Christ and Postmodern Philosophy
  
• Any of the "so-and-so and theology" texts. I know Badiou and Vattimo both have one.
  
  Hopefully someone comes by and expands this list. I've gotta get back to work.

If you're interested in an eastern philosophy perspective but have a western cultural background there's no one better than Alan Watts to start with. He's an expert at translating difficult concepts into a frame of reference that's far more digestible.

I'd start here with The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are. Alternatively you can listen to many of his talks on YouTube for free. I highly recommend this as his character is half the joy of his work. Here's a relevant talk that covers some of the same material as The Book, just in less depth obviously.

If you enjoy his work, then you can move on to more difficult material. I'm a huge fan of Nagarjuna and his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, or "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way". It's an incredible work but you can't just start there or you won't have the necessary conceptual vocabulary.

From a post I made awhile back:

If you want to go for a scholastic/western positive apologetics approach check out: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

If you want to go for a scholastic/western negative apologetics approach check out Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds. This is the work that actually re-kindled serious philosophical debate on the existence of God in Anglophone philosophical circles according to Quinten Smith (a notable atheist philosopher btw). From there you could also check out Alvin Plantinga's warrant trilogy in order: Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function, and Warranted Christian Belief.

Personally I'm skeptical of the scholastic/western approach in general and I favor the Eastern/Mystical approach. I think the scholastic/western approach cannot escape radical skepticism, and I mean this in terms of secular and religious. If one takes seriously the scholastic/western approach in general, whether one is atheist or theist, radical skepticism follows. This video from a radical skeptic that goes by the user name Carneades.org does a good job of demonstrating this: Arguments of the Indirect Skeptic

The Orthodox approach has always been mystical rather than scholastic all the way from the beginnings of Christianity. From Jesus, to the apostles, to the church fathers, to right now we still have the original apostolic faith in the Orthodox Church. Check out this short documentary to learn more: Holy Orthodoxy: The Ancient Church of Acts in the 21st Century.

Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky explains the Eastern/Mystical approach: "To properly understand the Orthodox approach to the Fathers, one must first of all understand the mystical characteristic of Orthodox theology and the tradition of the apophatic approach to an understanding-if "understanding" is indeed the proper word-of what the hidden God in Trinity reveals to us. This needs to be combined with the insight that what is incomprehensible to our reason inspires us to rise above every attempt at philosophical limitation and to reach for an experience beyond the limits of the intellect. The experience of God is a transcendence born from union with the divine-henosis (oneness with God) being the ultimate goal of existence. This makes the requirement of true knowledge (gnosis) the abandoning of all hope of the conventional subject-object approach to discovery. It requires setting aside the dead ends of Scholasticism, nominalism, and the limits set by such Kantian paradigms as noumena/phenomena. One must return to, or better yet, find in one's heart (or nous, the soul's eye) union with the Holy Trinity, which has never been lost in the Orthodox Church."

Source: Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky, (2004). Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. p. 178. Zondervan, Grand Rapids

This is one of my passions, so get ready.

Let's play a game; you pick any passage in 1 Samuel, and I will tell you how it is about Christ.

There are many more ways that the OT is about Jesus than just "messianic" and "allegory." But, I do want to caveat - verses and chapters, though helpful, are largely arbitrary units. I would nuance this to say that every "passage" is about Jesus - every independent literary unit. So no Jesus is not in every word, or every verse, or sometimes not even in every chapter, but he is what every passage is ultimately about.

If you haven't studied them, I would encourage you to consider a few NT passages - how Jesus considers the theme of the OT:

John 5:39-40: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Luke 24:25-17: "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

Or, maybe more on the nose, take a look at how the NT interprets OT passages that aren't "messianic."

Like Matthew 2:13-15, quoting Hosea 11:1 - in context clearly about Israel and not Jesus. But Matthew seems to think it is! If you read and wrestle with this article, you'll have a great start to understanding how the NT interprets the OT.

Following up on Matthew 2, John 12's use of Isaiah 6, or 1 Corinthians 10's use of much of the Exodus narrative - both use OT passages that are not evidently about Christ but prove to be.

If you're curious, I recommend two books: David Murray's "Jesus on Every Page" is a popular level book, and Sidney Greidanus' "Preaching Christ from the Old Testament" is more academic and will give a christocentric method for interpreting the OT.

There is scientific evidence that what I am saying is true. It's Historical in nature (and History is a science right?)

Christianity has been the seedbed for every Scientific revolution, Isaac Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, all believed in the Christian God and therefore found justification for their scientific pursuits in that belief.

Also, the kind of free Government we enjoy in western Nations was born after the Reformation under the watchful eyes of the Baptists, Anabaptists and the Puritans.

The ethic behind these movements was completely Christian, and religious freedom could only have been born under Christianity.

If you want to talk about the Old Testament and its laws, a simple way of seeing it is that Jesus fulfilled the law's demands as our the federal head of God's people. He purchased his children and redeemed them and so the Mosaic law now stands as a testimony to God's graceful forgiveness.

There's a whole lot written on the subject. If you like you can read this book to clarify some things for you. You can get a paperback or kindle version.

A few book suggestions you might not get elsewhere:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price — a fresh translation of the New Testament plus twenty-seven other early Christian documents and apocrypha.

Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman — a more popular-level discussion of early Christian texts (but does not include the texts themselves).

The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought — seems comprehensive, but I haven't read it yet. It's rather expensive.

One Biblical scholar and author who is very popular among Mormons (though she is not one) is Margaret Barker. Her focus is on the influence of temple theology and Jewish polytheism in the formation of Christianity. Her books include The Great Angel and The Great High Priest. They are scholarly reading and might be difficult for the casual reader to follow.

If you listen to podcasts, Robert Price ("the Bible Geek") and Mark Goodacre both have popular podcasts on the New Testament and early Christianity. The former was a Jesus Seminar member and has some fairly radical views; the latter is a more conservative evangelical.

Well theistic philosophers (who are part of the Abrahamic religions) tend to think the God of the Philosophers is the God of the Bible. One book I have heard of that is good on this is this one:

The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers (Aquinas Lecture) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0874621895/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_DdLEybVKH5GQ7


I haven't read it but I think it will be a good source for you to explore this question. The book defends the idea that the Philosophers God and Bible God can be reconciled.

I also recommend reading question 1 of Aquinas's Prima Pars of the Summa: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm. A good amount of it deals with this question.

>How is the knowledge of what a person is intrinsic? Also, how do you know that you, yourself, are a person, from an epistemic standpoint?

It's just the general definition for what you are. You know that experience and you know how it manifests externally. That is how you can define what a person is.

>How would you assert that you are the specific creature that was made in God's image?

Because the Bible doesn't say creature, it says man, a specific creature.

>Not trying to poke at things, but wouldn't an even simpler explanation be that they are "soulless" (can't think of a decent word at the moment), but still appear to have a mind? Similar to AI.

Not at all. How is it simpler that they would be different? That you are the only person with a "soul" despite everyone being created by God? Wouldn't that just be special pleading?

Remember the simplest explanation is not "the simplest to implement", it's not about whats simplest to make happen when you already know intrinsically consciousness can happen. Rather the simplest explanation is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

Assuming everyone who looks and acts like you has a mind, which you know you have, is one assumption.

Assuming everyone who looks and acts like you, does not in fact has a mind is one assumption. This also assumes you're now the only one with a mind. So that's two. Then you assume that for other's its a facsimile or AI. That's three. etc.

>I agree with that, but the problem is what humanity is. How do you know you are the creature that God was referring to?

As above, the Bible does not use "creature" it uses "man", as in "mankind".

>So then what is the point of believing them over not?

They're necessary for understanding the external world.

Before we were grounding all belief. To do that we grounded fundamental beliefs in ourselves, which makes sense as we are the ones that hold belief.

Now we've jumped to a scope beyond ourselves. These are the beliefs that are foundational to understanding the external world, but not necessarily foundational to ourselves or all belief in general.

>Are there any books in particular or online summaries that would relate to this certain aspect of PBBs?

I read Plantinga's book "Warranted Christian Belief" awhile back and I believe that starts to dig at those topics. This goes into some depth but it is written in more accessible language.

A more formal treatment by him would be his paper "On proper basicality" but it's an academic philosophy paper so it might be hard to digest. There's also "Is belief in god properly basic?", another paper of his but I can't find a link that isn't behind a paywall.

You can check out this list of some of his work. He addresses many of the questions you've been asking. Reformed epistemology is as good a place as any to jump into this.

William Lane Craig also talks about it occasionally, but I don't think he's written something specifically in regards to it.

I used to keep this link to a whole bunch of stuff, but I don't have it on hand. If you're serious about this topic, I would recommend picking up Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. He goes into much more depth about evidence, the quality of evidence, and external evidence than I can get to in one comment box. I believe he goes into the Romans, Josephus and others as well.

I'm not the one that states that they're entire belief system is constructed around the ability to test a hypothesis repeatedly to prove that something's true. While Physics is awesome, and there are many repeatable things, "historical science" is not repeatable.

Lastly, sure I know what pi is, the fact that it does not repeat is amazing.

#3 but with #1

>John 5:39,46 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me... For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me."
>
>Luke 24:44 "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

I recommend looking at works by Estelle and Fesko for some good Christological expositions of certain OT sections. I've heard Jesus on Every Page is a good starter, but I haven't picked it up myself.

I recently read Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah by Estelle. The way he reveals Christ in that book is stunning.

What? I didn't. I have no idea what you're referring to. =\

Wow. It's not showing on the thread anymore...that's really weird. Never seen that before. The whole thing still shows up in my comment history though. I'll re-paste it below:

---

Sure. I mostly mean being deliberately inclusive on non-core tenets and practices, while never compromising on the biblical core. We want to avoid ever comprising the faith, while also being willing to change whatever God wants us to change, in the vein of Paul's explanation in [1 Corinthians 9:19-23]. /u/versebot

I mean we ask two questions as a basis for life: "Where is it written in scripture?" and "How is your walk?" This puts focus on knowing Christ as upheld by scripture and embodying him in our lives as the center of everything else.

I mean we ask "Where are the absolute worst hurts in the world?" and concentrate missional focus there deliberately (which, humanly speaking, can be very hard to do).

I'll do my best to give some more specific examples below.

---

Regarding core-vs-secondary: For example, we explicitly affirm both infant baptism (followed later by confirmation) AND baby-dedication (followed later by personal-commitment baptism). We believe baptism as a practice is intended to unite believers into one body, rather than dividing them by the means of practicing it. This allows all believers to follow their consciences in the matter and respects the biblical argument one can make for each practice.

Another is that we believe in the full ordination of women (as a "trajectory" that be traced in the NT) and in the need to genuinely embrace LGBTQ people with love over everything else -- while affirming the centrality of scripture on all matters including sexuality (e.g. rejecting the allegedly "unstoppable slippery slope" that Piper and others say inevitably results in churches kowtowing to sexual liberalism . . . which we nevertheless are not doing). A good depiction of how we approach this matter is embodied in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619

Also, in sharing about the ECC before, I've run across the following commentary (from a Methodist's point of view) on our evangelistic mission:

http://www.confessingumc.org/could-we-learn-from-the-evangelical-covenant-church/

We've made it a conspicuous mission to conduct racial reconciliation and to seek multiracial/multiculturalism as a denomination in any ways we can. Any ways that people are divided from each other creates a gaping wound that the church can step in to heal in Christ, and we believe it is impossible to fully honor this without engaging in racial reconciliation.

In reaching out to anyone in poverty, we focus as local churches on the poor in our own neighborhood/city while also asking the global question, "Who are the absolute poorest people on the planet?" and concentrating denominational funding there deliberately.

We've also put a huge focus on combating slavery and sex trafficking over the last two decades, believing that this is one of the basest ways human beings are routinely desecrated around the world.

More or less, I've looked around at various Christian denominations with heartache over so many things that people refuse to change (that just aren't central) -- and also grieved at so many ways that multiple denominations have utterly compromised to accommodate the "demands of the world." I've felt such relief and gratitude to have a clear conscience in supporting the Evangelical Covenant church's stance and mission.

We're fairly small numerically speaking, and we have a lot to learn from our brothers and sisters in every denomination. Will/do leaders in the ECC ultimately require rebuke and correction? Almost certainly. But I feel relieved by (rather than ashamed of) the ECC on an ongoing basis. Are we somehow "superior"? Of course not. We're as humanly broken as the rest of the global church. But that hasn't stopped us from following Jesus in the special ways he's called us to do.

We're kind of "post-Lutheran" in our Swedish roots, but that's an easier thing to simply look up.

---

If there's anything I shared here that concerns you as mods, feel free to confront me about it. I will not be offended -- and neither will I make pretenses to falsely seek approval.

I'd encourage you to read a book called Is God a Moral Monster? by Dr. Paul Copan. The way he approaches the issues posed by seemingly barbaric things in the Old Testament is by acknowledging that from the Christian perspective the laws and commands we find there were not perfect or eternal ideals. They were used by God as a means to incrementally reform humanity and bring it back to Creation ideals.

For example, one helpful thing he points out (that I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the book in front of me) is that when Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 that Moses permitted men to give their wives a certificate of divorce that isn't a solitary teaching just on divorce, rather it illuminates how God approached man in the past in a much broader sense too. We can also read that as "God permitted you to wage wars against your neighbors because your hearts were hard," and "God permitted you to be patriarchal because your hearts were hard," etc.

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

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

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

haha! yeah that would be pretty funny. youre right though, according to Mahayana (and Buddhism generally, though they focus less on "Sunyata" compared to Mahayana), reifying things, the self and other, as inherently existent, independent, unchanging, etc is the fundamental primary delusion that leads us to appropriate things mainly either through acquiring pleasure and avoiding pain.

a great read on Sunyata, or emptiness, is THE FUNDAMENTAL WISDOM OF THE MIDDLE WAY by Nagarjuna, translated by Jay L. Garfield: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way-M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81/dp/0195093364

Read it, fun story. I really like the part where in Atra-Hasis it states that the flood was a river flood. Then to Gilgamesh it evolves to the Sea was flooded. Then Noah, the next in the chain, it's a Worldwide flood that covered even up to the mountains.

Genesis 7:17-20

• 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
  
• 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
  
• 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
  
• 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
  
  
  River flooded, to Sea flooded, to World flooded. Essentially what we have here is oral tradition from generation to generation, and each generation embellishing on the previous one to make it sound bigger and better. Sort of like the game of Telephone one plays as a kid.
  
  A really good book on these kind of situations is by Alan Dundes - Holy Writ as Oral Lit.

>Is there evidence to support the sacred reality to which these religions appeal?

In the cases where evidence is applicable, sure. Look, for example, at James H. Austin's Zen and the Brain. I'd certainly argue that various notions of an enlightened view of existence are reachable through logic, too, though that's more through rational debate/philosophy based on our evidence rather than a direct demonstration through an empirical experiment. Jay Garfield's commentary on/translation of The Mulamadhyamakakarika is a great example of that kind of logic at work.

In other cases, such as a vaguely pantheist sense of sublime awe at the totality of the universe and a subsequent feeling that we should try to contribute to a better world as espoused by some UU members, I'm not sure that evidence for/against is really applicable. It's about what humans experience as profound and applicable to their values, which isn't an objective, quantifiable, controllable, falsifiable process.

It's not so much a return to religion as it is the evolution and adaptation of Marx and Feuerbach to today's left. Additional analysis and review is always beneficial, though it's clearly not the religious analysis of its forefathers. In my mind, religion in communist thought can be broken into three basic streams:

• Marx/Feuerbach's religion. Emancipation from illusory and psychological oppression is a prerequisite for our emancipation from real oppression:
  
  > Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
  
  AND
  
  > My only wish is to transform friends of God into friends of man,
  > believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
  > candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians
  > who, by their own procession and admission, are "half animal, half
  > angel" into persons, into whole persons.
  
  
• Zizek's interpretation: Religion, devoid of the supernatural, is essentially communist in that most religions tend toward peace/equality.
  
  
• Eagleton's interpretation: Communism is only possible through religious thought. Left to the devices of man, corruption is rampant. (Insert anti-Stalin remarks here.)
  
  Basically what I'm saying is that the new analyses of religion in communist thought exist to add more options so as not to exclude the religious and agnostic.
  
  NOTE -- I don't know why I wrote anything after this point. It's basically a book/theme review. I spent time on it, so I left it here. Maybe someone will enjoy it.
  
  Eagleton's flops around quite a bit. Literary Theory spends the majority of its time bashing postmodernism but his later After Theory narrows the argument to defining absolutes (the human body) and a need for an objective morality that sounds an awful lot like humanism. As far as contributing to communist studies, I don't consider Eagleton an authority on the subject. For example, Why Marx was Right makes no rational or coherent economic arguments for communism. His communism is a result of his faith, not the other way around. Obviously there's a strong moral argument to be made for communism but if that argument is to be made from any other standpoint than humanism I would count it as counterproductive.
  
  As for Zizek, he's clearly not religious and enjoys adapting the Marx/Feuerbach analyses to (post)modern thought. He's sort of the anti-Eagleton in that regard. His work on religion in particular ranges from interesting to absolutely fantastic.
  
  From The Puppet and the Dwarf:
  
  > It is possible today to redeem this core of Christianity only in the
  > gesture of abandoning the shell of its institutional organization (and
  > even more so, of its specific religious experience). The gap here is
  > irreducible: either one drops the religious form, or one maintains the
  > form but lose the essence. This is the ultimate heroic gesture that
  > awaits Christianity: in order to save its treasure, it has to sacrifice
  > itself -- like Christ, who had to die so that Christianity could emerge.
  
  Zizek's analysis of religion isn't always directly from a communist standpoint, though Freud/Lacan are acceptable substitutes in a pinch.
  
  As for Vattimo, I've yet to read Hermeneutic Communism even though I've had it sitting around for a while. His previous work on religion has been very solid. That being said, if you're not one for postmodernism it really isn't something you'll enjoy.
  
  BONUS: If you're interested in reading any of the material listed by these authors, please PM me. I have PDF/MOBI copies available. If I don't have it, I'll help you find it.
  
  I'll post a comment in reply to this one with links to all the files I upload as not to have duplicates.

The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is amazing if you have a background in philosophy, more of a metaphysical look at existence, and why things have to exist this certain way that they do (won't spoil it for you)
The Way of the Bodhisattva is also good, you can find a free online version (I think it's a better translation than the printed version I read) at www.shantideva.net

I know it's only anecdotally about Buddhism, but Coffinman is a great novel, it got made into the award-winning film Departures (Okuribito) a few years back.

This is probably overly obvious, but: the Zohar.

If you happen to speak French, I highly recommend de Pauly's translation. If you happen to be able to read the very arcane version of Aramaic in which it was originally written, then that is available readily online and would be the obviously best choice. If you need an English version, I'd say that this one is probably considered the best.

Ok that was longer than a few moments, but here we go!



Well, for one thing, we have to understand that there is a vast cultural rift between 2012 America/Canada/Europe/whatever and the 1500ish BC Middle East.

Some of Old Testament regulations regarding slavery, marriage, etc. may seem harsh to us, but compared to the brutal cultural norms of that era, they were actually quite liberating. For the Bible to say that women, children, slaves, and foreigners had any rights at all was a revolutionary idea.

Still, the Old Testament commandments were not necessarily intended to illustrate God's vision of a perfect society.

Rather, they were intended to restrict evil as much as was reasonably possible within a somewhat barbaric culture (though they might say the same of our culture in many ways!), and ultimately to show them that their own attempt to perfectly follow every part of the law was hopeless- that as lawbreakers they needed a righteousness that went beyond mere behavior modification. That's where Jesus comes in.



Here is a link multiple links to a talk by Dr. John Dickson (PhD in Ancient History) that touches on a lot of your concerns (specifically violence in the Old Testament):

Part 1 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2531

Part 2 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2532

Part 3 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2533

Part 4 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2534




And here is a gigantic unorganized pile of some other somewhat relevant links. I can't absolutely vouch for everything, but they should be generally helpful.



http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/30/what-about-genocide-in-the-old-testament/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/did-god-condone-slavery.html

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/what-are-christians-to-do-with-old-testament-law/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

http://carm.org/slavery

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/you-may-buy-slaves

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/02/was-the-mosaic-law-meant-to-be-permanent/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/13/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-1/

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son

http://carm.org/questions/about-bible

http://carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask

http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions




Also, here are a couple of books you might be interested in. I have not personally read them, but I've heard good things.


http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072751?tag=apture-20



I hope that helps! Thanks for your honest and respectful questions. :)

He is the MASTER, I mean it, of the short story. I would say his short stories are much better than his novels. I'm about halfway through his entire short story collection right now ([The Finca Vigia Edition] (http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323)) and I love it so much. With his short, simple, to the point language it's quite obvious he would do his best work in a shorter format, in my opinion. I have only read two of his books, those being "The Sun Also Rises" and "The Old Man and the Sea", both were phenomenal and I feel like his terse prose brought the novel and especially the short story to new heights.

When I was in the process of losing my faith, I would go through cycles where I would be sure that Christianity was wrong, and then wonder if maybe it wasn't, etc. So there were definitely periods where I wondered if I might have been mistaken to think I knew more than the community that raised me.

But the more I read, the more I reflected, and probably most importantly the more I talked to other Christians about my doubts, the more convinced I became that God as I understood him did not exist.

This book closely mirrors my story. It doesn't go into very great depth on many specific issues, but it introduces a wide variety of ideas, it provides a lot of references for further reading, and it's the best book I've read at helping you get inside the mind of someone who lost the struggle with doubt. In my experience most Christians have a very hard time understanding how someone can leave the faith in an intellectually honest way, so that's always the book I recommend they read if they want to know.

To specifically answer your question from the present, no I do not doubt that the Christian God I was taught about as a child does not exist. It's entirely likely that there are major things out there that I/we do not understand yet, but there remain no doubts that Yahweh might be one of them.

For sure. Margaret Barker, for one, argues that the divine counsil with a high god and lesser gods gets transformed into God and the angels. Some not-really-monotheistic traditions in first century Judaism, in her argument, set the stage for Jesus worship as a Great Angel, a position that was roughly equivalent to what had been Yhwh's position in the divine counsil.

I recommend Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary. It documents the process of someone who was way more Christian than I ever was coming to grips with his increasing doubts. I like it because it is very sympathetic to the believer's position, I felt like he 'got me'. While I like Dawkins and the other suggestions, they are writing from another planet.

My other under-suggested favorite is Atheism And The Case Against Christ.

Cool! On evolution, Pete Enns' The Evolution of Adam. He takes very seriously the theological implications of evolution, and makes a strong case for Christianity's ability to not only accept it but gain new insights from it. For more of a textual look at Genesis and why a literal reading isn't the best one, John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One.

On both the non-historicity and cruelty of parts of the OT, check out Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God. This was a huge problem for me in accepting Christianity, probably the biggest hurdle I had to cross, and Stark's book did more than anything else to help me wrestle with it.

On miracles, I'm going to point you at a longer book, but it's well worth a read if you're interested in a strong case. Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus argues that the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead should not only be considered, it's actually the strongest one that's been proposed from a historical standpoint, as long as you're not ruling out the possibility that the universe might surprise you sometimes.

And this book I recommend to anybody even remotely intrigued by Christianity: The King Jesus Gospel. It's like seeing the story with entirely new eyes, and it knocks down a lot of really harmful misunderstandings of what the gospel's actually about.

>I believe that Christianity is rationally defensible, that religious experiences are valid, and that belief in God enjoys proper basicality--as Alvin Plantinga has defended

I think Plantinga, Alston and Wolterstorff's reformed epistemology is one of the most convincing defenses of rational belief that has hence been devised.

Warranted Christian Belief is an extraordinarily good read. There is an updated, condensed version also: Knowledge and Christian Belief.

Chiming in for a sec, we used this book in my Buddhist Metaphysics class which focused a lot on Nagarjuna. This is his greatest work and it also includes some good commentary for clarification, since you'll probably need it, the first time around anyway :)

> ...a TRUE Christian believes the Bible literally in it's entirety.

Then Paul was clearly not a true Christian.

You really should read at least this article, if not the book it comes from.

Other books worth reading are Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament and The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong.

The Bible is clearly not the book many evangelicals wish it was.

oh, my bad. It's from the Holy Bible, Old Testament.

When you have some time, I suggest watching each episode in order: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVmWQSfQeD92BNNvCwfGZkA/videos

Watching a movie seems to be a lot more approachable than dealing with the awkward english in most written Bibles. It gives a decent overview.

Then, if/when you find yourself at a certain point in life asking yourself if this story could actually be inspired by God, I suggest checking out a very detailed and erudite book that asks the same question.

It would probably take less than two weeks to go through all the info. After which, you'll be more educated on the subject than about 95% of people (atheist/agnostic/ or Christian).

Good luck. God bless.

MAGA!

You're exactly right - the ban itself is basically sanctioning killing the entire population, even animals, in order to cleanse it for the Hebrews.

Except that's not part of Christian theology; that is defined by the New Testament since in several places, it explicitly states that parts of the Old Testament are being fulfilled and therefore replaced.

The other major difference - last I checked, the Jewish ban hadn't been used since... well, they conquered Canaan those thousands of years ago. Crusades aren't even justified by the New Testament.

There's also a key difference that most people miss when discussing Christian and Islamic theology - hermeneutrics. There's a great book on this calle "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals" that anyone wanting to get a deeper dive on theology than you'll get on most places on the internet should read. Its focused on Christian theology, of course, but the logic and way of thinking presented can just as easily be applied to the Quran.

Its a way of thinking founded on two axioms:

1. Even the great religious books of the world were written to people of that time; therefore if your interpretation would be meaningless to that culture/time, its probably not a correct interpretation. After all, if it meant nothing to the people at the time, it wouldn't have been saved for future generations.
   
2. To get an idea of where that theology would go in subsequent develops of the culture, you should compare those teachings on a subject to the cultural standard on that subject, given that period.
   
   The first one is easy enough to understand, but the second takes a bit of thinking. Take slavery, for example. Slaves during that time in Judea and the Roman Empire were common and there really weren't any laws against beaten them, etc. (Now, some you wanted to keep happy, such as those who were teachers, etc). However, in the New Testament, there's a pretty shocking verse for that period: "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
   
   It has to be different than the norm... otherwise why the hell say that? The book goes on using this example, but basically it caught people of that era that even slaves deserved to be respected, etc. So its progressive in this thought and therefore it makes sense that, if the revelations were being made during the 1960's USA, it'd probably be for the abolition of slavery. After all, "there is no favoritism with him" means that God doesn't see master and slave, just two people.
   
   If you have time, its a great read. Very scholarly, but a great read nonetheless.

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.

>the claims of christianity are quite extraordinary, and thereby requires extraordinary evidence or argumentation; I am sure that if any of these people had come up with a truly extraordinary argument I would have heard about it. I must conclude they have not.

My earlier point, when I mentioned both classical and contemporary philosophers/theologians, was to show you that christendom had already produced rigorous and rational reasons for the intellectual viability of the christian faith. From the fact that you haven't heard about these writings it does not necessarily follow that they are not compelling or true, or further, that they do not exist. Therefore, your deduction is invalid on this point.

>This in contrast with my limited experience with theology...I have examined the ideas and found them to be extremely wanting in terms of logic and evidence.

You seem to vacillate on whether you are actually familiar with christian thought. You seem to say that you have limited experience with it, and then claim that you find their defences to be illogical and wanting. Seeing as how you also claimed that you hadn't come across 'extraordinary' (i'll construe this as compelling) arguments for christianity, I can safely assume you aren't familiar with rigorous christian thought. This also means that the pool of information from which you deduce your conclusions is insuficient. I'll provide some links to some material to further your knowledge of the christian faith.

>Any open-minded child can see it, and it takes an adult mind to come up with the kind of contortions that pass for a defense of those ideas.

When it comes to questions that are religious or philosophical in nature, the answers are hardly simple. Any subject matter becomes increasingly sophisticated the more you develop it, and the same is with religion and philosophy. To expect otherwise is unfair at the least, and irrational at worst.

Per your request of your wishing me to delineate the founding principles of christianity, I will admit that I neither have the talent or the time to do them justice in this kind of setting. It should suffice that I affirm the nicean creed. As per your list, this should get you started:
God 1 and 2,
the Trinity,
Omniscience 1 and 2.
I'll construe your question of God and regret to the question on whether God can change. If that's fair, then these links may help.
Your question on how the OT and NT harmonize may come because you see the seemingly moral infractions that God causes in the OT versus the seemingly squishy and loving God in the NT. If this is the case, then maybe these links will help some.
For your question on the atonement, this may help.
The wikipedia article on original sin is pretty good, so read that for more info.
Your question on why the theist God is more plausible than other gods that humanity has come up with should become self-evident if you go through the material I have linked here.

>My basic argument will be this: it is possible to waste many words on these topics, but no essay can compete with the idea that it is simply made-up nonsense in terms of parsimony and consistency. Therefore, for anyone who values reason, that should be the default position.

Your position here is one that I find most unhelpful in this exchange. Unless you provide reasons or material on why christianity is "simply made-up nonsense", then your saying that "no essay (which I'll interpret as argumentation) can compete with [your] idea" actually boils down to circular argumentation. You really come across as saying that christianity is silly because it's obviously silly. That kind of assertion (not deduction) doesn't hold water; you have to provide reasons for why that should be the case. If you say that Occam's Razor is an intrinsic defeater for christianity, then you have to show me just how it defeats it. If you say christianity is illogical, then you have to show me how. Once you tell me how you came to those conclusion, I can understand where you're coming from and we can share/learn from one another.

I've given you stuff that I went through when learning about my faith so I've linked it to you. You may find it frustrating that I sent you material for you to go through yourself instead of my just typing it out. I did this because I don't think you've exposed yourself to enough material on christianity to substantiate the claims you make here. If you're going to hold your views, that's cool, but if you want to make huge claims like christianity is "baloney" or "illogical," then you have to be familiar with what you're going up against. Until you familiarize yourself with the material, I doubt our exchange would be useful; at least not until you are more forthcoming in telling me what you believe, why you believe it, and (for the purposes of this conversation) why you think (in detail) that christianity is baloney and illogical.

the mulamadhyamakakarika is going to be pretty tough sledding for someone who has no background in buddhist philosophy. better to read a commentary on it before tackling it directly. try garfield's excellent treatment as it's the standard for teaching nagarjuna's "fundamental wisdom of the middle way".

His short stories are the best place to start. There's a bunch of collections, some better than others, but the Finca Vigia Edition is definitive collection: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334338570&sr=1-1

It contains the best of his early stuff, plus a few stories that came after his first collection and a few unpublished in his lifetime.

Which is precisely the point. There is no "good evidence" that the alleged Jesus of Nazerth existed at all. The entire Jesus story does, however, rather neatly fit the patterns in folklore reserved for every hero warrior god throughout every major civilisation—many of which predate middle-eastern literacy by thousands of years.

The "good evidence" Christianity continually asserts as its authority on which to speak, is—without exception—internal apologetics which presumes scriptural teaching to be authentic and correct—when in reality biblical scholars have long since given up trying to differentiate between genuine texts, such a St. Paul's letters to the Corinthians and the deliberate misinformation spread by early Christianity's main opposition—i.e., the Pagan Hoards whose traditions and rites were hijacked and commandeered by Christianity itself.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Writ-Oral-Lit-Folklore/dp/0847691985

If the rising from the dead of a composite character from folklore is the tenuous link between Yahweh's existence and everything attributed to him being true or false, you can at least see why so many of us choose to come down on the side of science and rationalism?

I'm currently reading a book that argues for Evolution, while still giving respect to Evangelicals, and keeping scriptural integrity. It's called The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns. It's well written, and easy to read even for an freshman armchair-theologian such as myself.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Adam-The-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333438037&sr=8-1

I can really recommend two collections;

• The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway -you find it on [amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684843323) - a collection of his amazing short stories, with background information of his life seen in context with his writing. So you learn a little Hemingway while reading
  
  
• slightly different genre, but I cannot recommend reading original Sherlock Holmes stories enough. You can buy complete Sherlock Holmes relatively cheap, or just start with any of the most known stories.
  
  Furthermore, if you want to add a little style to your bookshelf, buy one of these. they are basically all great reads!
  
  
  

Since I have no idea what kind of books you like I made a short little list of books I generally recommend to people for any reason. All linked to amazon so look for a review or synopsis there.

Let the Great World Spin

The Great War for Civilization

The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway

Oil!

The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde

Theodore Rex

Lincoln:A Novel

>I'm looking for a Christian minded book, but preferably one that doesn't just talk about God through Christian legalistic eyes quoting solely scripture, but books that include science and philosophy as well. Or a book that compares religions thoroughly.

I'd recommend this:

Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias

The amazon.com book reviews offer a lot of insight... here's a snippet from one of them:

"This book serves only to give false confidence to those who already believe. As an honest seeker for truth, it offers nothing."

If she wanted to have a honest discussion with you, I'd imagine that she would give you a more serious book. Something like "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell(link, if you want to read it sometime: http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=pd_sim_b_1 ), or something of that nature. Of course, it could be that she really isn't that interested in having a honest discussion with you :/. Then again, she may have never actually read anything of that level herself.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for people with a Western Post-Enlightenment worldview to simply interpret what Pre-Modern Hellenistic Jews were writing, especially if unaware of the context.

I was supplying interpretations from biblical scholars and showing that there are multiple ways that people understand Jesus' divinity. I wasn't making any value statements that they are better or even exclusive of one another. These are just the ways that people read the text.

Edit: If you want to read some biblical scholars and their interpretations of what Jesus meant by claiming divinity.

[N.T. Wright- Jesus and the Victory of God] (http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Christian-Origins-Question-Volume/dp/0800626826)

[Marcus Borg- Jesus: A New Vision] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Vision-Spirit-Culture-Discipleship/dp/0060608145)

[Richard Bauckham- Jesus and the God of Israel] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Israel-Testaments-Christology/dp/0802845592)

[John Dominic Crossan- Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Revolutionary-John-Dominic-Crossan/dp/006180035X)

[Reza Aslan- Zealot] (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/0812981480) Edit 2: Apparently his credentials are in some dispute and this particular book is pretty "pop theology" but I found this [post] (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/08/two-scholars-respond-to-the-actual-content-of-reza-aslans-take-on-jesus/) by a theologian I respect that gives some insight into the whole thing.

[Thomas J.J. Altizer- Contemporary Jesus] (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1876258.Contemporary_Jesus)

For the MMK, Jay Garfield's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is quite well-regarded, albeit somewhat academic in style. I've also heard good things about Siderits' work.

Currently reading and enjoying Margaret Barker’s The Great Angel .

It might be best to just jump into the literature itself. Like both articles on VE stated, there are different camps, though they're not always mutually exclusive. And Wiki mentioned Alvin Plantinga. He's quasi-VE, but written very directly on the subject you're interested in. He has a paper called "Justification and Theism" that predates his trilogy on warrant, the last one titled Warranted Christian Belief. In fact, I have an abridged chapter of that book; Plantinga presented it as a paper at a conference years ago. I also have, from that same conference, a paper "Proper Epistemic Function and the Intellectual Virtues" by Jay Wood and Robert C. Roberts, who are referenced in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on VE. There's also a paper on Proper Function in science. I don't mind scanning these papers and emailing or uploading them.

I also think that you would benefit from subjecting Foundationalism (which includes both Empiricism and Rationalism) to much more critical scrutiny, and for reasons unrelated to "supernatural" questions. The foundations are illusory. Richard Rorty, who was thoroughly atheist himself, had some of the harshest criticisms of Foundationalism.

Try this. Paul reworked the Shema so that Jesus received a place of mention beside the Father. Also note how Paul sometimes treats them as interchangeable.

For non-biblical sources, N. T. Wright has put out a couple books on the subject: Jesus and the Victor of God is perhaps the most relevant, but his recent monster of a book Paul and the Faithfulness of God dedicates a portion of the book to Monotheism in Paul's thought. If you're into academic stuff you could give PatFoG a try, as it goes over historical research in the time as well. It's 1700 pages though.

I am another Christian who has read it. I know many others who have read it and have come to be more understanding of the atheistic viewpoint. I would also recommend it. :-)

I would also recommend for basic understanding of the Christian viewpoint:

• Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
  
• The Language of God - Francis Collins
  
• Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias
  
• The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel
  

The book Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary might help.

The author has a gentle but honest approach.

Good comments. I have only this in return. The Judaic nationalism was pervasive, even beyond Palestinian borders. How each self-identified sect interacted with "gentiles" varied, but the degree of retention of religious and national identity was well maintained. That maintenance varied in idea but not really to the degree that you ever came out the other side doing anything other than concentrating your exclusivity. I think the evidence for this is quite strong. Jewish nationals were quite persecuted, even in Alexandria (see the Book of Wisdom e.g.) which is sometimes held out as the embodiment of Greco-Roman inclusion and was home to Philo). In the end the Jews were "put down" so to speak.

Actually, the volume by Wright prior to the one mentioned above (here ) is cover to cover about how Jesus was constantly only condemning nationalism.

Edit: and the volume after is about Paul taking up the same dispute.

Definitely read his short stories. I've got this compilation, and I love it.

There are accounts of such things happening. It's not fair to say they've "never" happened. That's unprovable.

Your second paragraph has a lot of questions. But Jesus had to be sacrificed in order to maintain justice. A just judge won't "forgive" someone, ever. Justice must be served. Jesus chose to take our punishment for us.

Please actually read the Bible. Not speaking against something specifically doesn't mean he wasn't very obviously against it.

Your last statement isn't a just conclusion to me. Please consider reading:

Short read: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 Long read: http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Christian-Origins-Question-Volume/dp/0800626826

To add to this, I've seen arguments made that the gospels portray Jesus (Yeshua), The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh), and God (YHWH) as one and the same. They've explained further that this would not be a problem to the Hebraic mindset as opposed to our modern western minds that need a neat rational explanation for everything.

I've, also, seen arguments made by Bart Ehrman, in How Jesus Became God, that Jesus is simply a preacher that was, over time, glorified to the position of God by later followers.

On the other hand, I've heard arguments from N.T. Wright, in Jesus and the Victory of God, that Jesus is the prophet-messiah and the embodiment of YHWH as King.

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way-Mlamadhyamakakrik/dp/0195093364

It will take a while to understand the book but the rewards are worth it imo. I'm just starting to read up on it myself.

I've really been wanting to read this edition of The Zohar (linked below). It's not a bible but rather an ancient commentary on the 5 books of Moses. It sounds like it might be sort of what you are looking for ie. an occult guide to (some of) the old testament.

https://www.amazon.com/Zohar-Pritzker-Vol-1/dp/0804747474/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517446132&sr=1-3&keywords=zohar

"The Zohar is a collection of commentaries on the Torah, intended to guide people who have already achieved high spiritual degrees to the root (origin) of their souls. To those without spiritual attainment, The Zohar reads like a collection of allegories and legends that can be interpreted and perceived differently by each individual. But to those with spiritual attainment, i.e. Kabbalists, The Zohar is a practical guide to inner actions that one performs in order to discover deeper, higher states of perception and sensation."

> The theory of evolution is established to the same extent as germ theory or gravitational theory.

No it is not, because theory evolution is looking back and applying interpretation on it. Evolution is part of historical sciences. Gravitation and germ theory are not, they are demonstrable in the lab. Evolution is not demonstrable, you can't even apply scientific method, math, or devise some mechanism or experiment to replicate its phenomenon. No such mechanism exists when it comes to Evolution, which is why it cannot be treated seriously. It is purely speculative. All you have is dead rocks and you apply your atheistic spin on them. That's all.

>There are millions of your fellow Christians who believe in and embrace the theory of evolution and many are paleontologists. I encourage you to reconsider your position.

I'm aware of many fallen victims. But thanks, I choose to believe what the Word of God says. And if you ever studied Genesis carefully, you will discover that it is irreconcilable with Evolution. Those who believe in Evolution do it at the expense of reinterpreting the Bible. They take outside ideas, they apply them to scriptures, and then they start to reinterpret the scripture to make it work somehow. This Christian guy who believes in evolution has reinterpret the Bible to a such a degree that he wrote this next book: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Adam-Bible-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X
You see this guy does not believe in literal Adam anymore. Why? Science.

>Is it Possible to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?

Just like it is possible two serve many gods it is possible to believe in evolution and creation. However, it is not something God pleases, and it is a question of authority. Who do you trust more, the Bible, or science?

If you want what is probably the most influential book in Mahayana literature that would be Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Now the book I just linked includes Nagarjuna's original text with no commentary in the first section, and the second section has Garfield's commentary of the text line by line. Now in your post you said you wanted depth, and this book is definitely a heavy read. You can of course try to read Nagarjuna's text without the commentary, but if you're like me you will find yourself jumping to the commentary.

Besides Clowney and the Simeon Trust (those two are probably your best resources):

• Christ Centered Preaching by Brian Chapel
  
• Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy
  
  And two others that I've heard good things about, but not read myself:
  
  
• Jesus on Every Page by David Murray
  
• Preaching Christ from the Old Testament by Sidney Greidanus

Jesus Among Other Gods

and

Problem of Pain

are two that come to my mind. I think both are great reads for non-believers who were raised Christian or have a solid understanding of Christianity.

I wish I could meet you all in person to have this discussion. My answer is yes, he existed and was crucified, but because I don't have resources in front of me at the moment, I'll just simply point you to a scholar.

Dr. Gary Habermas is a great scholar on this topic. He wrote this book called The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. In the book he argues for the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion from a historical perspective. Some of his lectures are on youtube.

I have been struggling with the same exact things...My eyes were opened by this article about Pauls perception of the Old Testament God. This is also a very common struggle amongst many Christians.
http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/01/way-peace-and-grace

Also, a really good recent book is out called "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

Both of these are definitely worth reading.

The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemmingway is fifteen dollars on amazon, though you could probably find it for cheaper. It'll likely be a great indicator of whether you want to continue with the project or not. I started there and let me tell you what, there is a reason that man is known as the master of the short story.

Kenneth Daniels was involved in the ministry (as a Bible translator) when he deconverted. His book, Why I Believed, describes his experience and how he ultimatly pulled away from the ministry. I think it might be a helpful read in your situation. I felt like I really benifited from reading it. He has even posted it free online.

I posted the wrong book in my original comment, this is the one I meant to link to you, unbiased, evidence just laid out. http://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198


Both are worth checking out though. Be blessed!

Holy Writ as Oral Lit: the bible as folklore if your mother believes the bible is the direct word of god this might be a good book to start her on. It's a short study of biblical contradictions with an emphasis on considering it as folklore and not holy writ. It's a super quick read and may just plant some seeds of doubt without being heavy-handed.

>Exhibit A: The Flood
>Exhibit B: The Amalekites
>Satan makes good points.

I would primarily direct you to this book Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan as it uses respected scholarly information to help explain the appearance of a wicked Old Testament God.

As for the flood, supposing that God is real and authoritative, doesn't he have the responsibility to be just? Sin requires punishment, so God as the righteous judge enacts that punishment when he deems fit. Every instance of judgment (including the flood) is preceded by many attempts by God to get people turn back from evil and trust in him.

>Inasmuch as "you have the 'free will' to prostrate yourself before God (the architect of exhibits A and B above) or be punished" goes, I suppose.

Hell is commonly described as punishment but it is simply God giving us exactly what we want, total separation from him.

Here are two excellent books that rationally approach the historical evidence as to whether Jesus Christ existed...

The Case for Christ

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict

Too many to choose from, but briefly:

The Peacemaker by Ken Sande

Repentance by John Miller

The Mortification of Sin by John Owen

The Book of Romans by John Murray

Jesus on Every Page by David Murray

Paul: An Outline of His Theology by Herman Ridderbos

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray

Collected Writings...4 Volumes by John Murray

The Shepherd Leader by Timothy Witmer

I am also partial to most things by Sinclair Ferguson and Richard Gaffin.

Not a Church Father, but when I was a new believer this book really helped me. It's big, but it really digs deep into the historic evidence for the faith.

Add these to your reading list:

• Anything by John Warwick Montgomery
  
• JP Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker, 1987)
  
• Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Baker, 1988)
  
• Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Volume 1 (Here's Life, 1992) Volume 2 (Thomas Nelson, 1992); these have apparently been revised and expanded into a single volume (Thomas Nelson, 1999).
  
• Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)
  
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (self-published, 1264); note this is in four volumes
  
• Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius, 1994)
  
  Specifically on morality:
  
  
• Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism (Ignatius, 1999)
  
• Anything by Jay Budziszewski or Janet Smith
  
  There also exist multimedia available online related to the above that you can hunt down for yourself.
  
  (As a Catholic naturally I disagree with whatever goes against Catholic teaching in the above works; nevertheless there is much that is good in all of these. Furthermore even though some items are specifically Catholic, much in them would be useful to you.)

You will find lots of good resources on creation.com which will answer your questions. Although your parents may be unaware of the answers, they do indeed exist, for those willing to find them.

Also, Josh McDowell's book, 'The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict' could be worth a read if you can find a copy. Here is one link: https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Shalom.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Adam-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X

Seriously, do it. It's one of the best resources I know of for almost all of your questions.

Have you read "The Puppet and the Dwarf", by Slavoj Zizek? He has some interesting things to say!

http://www.amazon.com/Puppet-Dwarf-Perverse-Christianity-Circuits/dp/0262740257/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420579201&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Puppet+and+the+Dwarf

For reference, here is the Hemingway book on top: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323

I own it & would recommend it.

I would encourage you to read Ravi Zacharias' book "Jesus among other Gods" - it lays out the case from the Christian perspective why Christianity is more viable than Islam or any other religion.

You guys have some good arguments on here, but this argument is not really that strong.

For example: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Made-Impossible-Biblicism-Evangelical/dp/1587433036

Dr. Christian Smith (Sociologist at Notre Dame) argues that a literalist reading of the Bible (like the vast majority of Evangelicals) is absurd. Yet, he still maintains a very strong view of the Bible.

I think this argument sounds nice to people who want it to be. I don't think it's actually a solid argument.

really? Tell me more. I only have Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Halleys, tektonics is another good site (that I haven't delved into too much). I never really looked into it until I was ready to look at it from an informed perspective, if these are your sources, they are mine as well (in fact I quoted two of his sources in my blurb). Until I was able to use negative inference, reason, and informed research to posit a secular hypothesis at early Christianity, I was scared to delve into a possible Sophist interpretation of events. I think after reading a few weeks of early Greek thought, I found the bed of ideas that birthed Christianity outside of dates and names. There may have been a historical Jesus, but I'd like to subtract all the pre existing ideas before I meet him.

So it's all just a metaphor? Hard to buy that.

There are a couple of books on Amazon that address this topic, however. One is called Is God a Moral Monster? and the other is titled God Behaving Badly.

Regarding the Old Testament, here's a good book on the subject.

Ok ... evidence from my side ...


> we have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. We have so many copies, not to mention all the quotes and paraphrases from the church fathers, that we know all the meaning of the Bible. However, many copies have textual copyist errors, and we are about 97% certain of each word of the New Testament. On one hand, this is a very high percentage. On the other hand, it could be higher. Perhaps a lesson to learn is that God was extremely concerned with preserving 100% of the meaning of the New Testament, but not as concerned with the individual words.

-- http://inerrancy.org/ntmss.htm



Other places to read:

• http://inerrancy.org/
  
  
• http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/AssuredResults.html
  
  
• http://www.trustbible.com/testament.htm#greek
  
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Manuscript
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=pd_sim_b_13
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Case-Faith-Journalist-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697
  
  Edit: formatting
  
  Edit 2: add a book

Read Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? for more info on all these Old Testament laws and traditions. Context is key! Can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372794710&sr=8-1&keywords=is+god+a+moral+monster

Many theologians would disagree. I haven't read this yet, but I definitely will

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Adam-Bible-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X

David Murray has a very readable book - Jesus On Every Page that might help.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Mulamadhyamakakarika/dp/0195093364


As far as I know it's definitely buddhist

Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Loving to Know:Covenant Epistemology by Esther Meek

Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372892515&sr=1-1&keywords=Evidence+That+Demands+A+Verdict

Read This Book
The Author is Josh McDowell, and Atheist who wanting to find evidence against the Bible, found the truth, and converted to Christianity.
It is a must read!

There's a book on the subject: Is God A Moral Monster?

Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary. It's quite seriously one of the most humble and honestly written approaches to de-conversion that I've ever read.

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0785242198/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Cil5AbQWFBXQ5

I certainly can answer. The burden of proof is not on me. The evidence is overwhelming. Explain how you dismissed all the evidence.

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Volume/dp/0840743785

I don't know if this will help, but you might want to check out the book Why I Believed by Kenneth Daniels, himself a former missionary: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Believed-Reflections-Former-Missionary-ebook/dp/B003UNLMRY/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= . He tells his story there and you might get some insights from it.

Also, you might check out http://clergyproject.org/ to see if you can talk to someone there who has been in a similar situation

You might want to read this.

• http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0899007325/ref=aw_d_cr_books

> Why would it? I don't have a problem with it.

Because the credibility of the bible is based on two assumptions:

1. Before any part of the new testament was written, it was retold though oral tradition. Leading apologist Lee Strobel makes the case that we can believe the accuracy of the bible. Although it was retold orally, the first Christians would have corrected any mistellings when they heard inconsistency.
   
   2)Josh McDowell confirms that early Christians put such a high regard on what they wrote about Jesus so we can conclude that there aren't any errors.
   
   That's it. That is why the the new testament has no credibility. If you don't have a problem with that, you should.

Not sure what sorts of perspectives you're looking for, but NT Wright is a top notch academic writing from a somewhat conservative Anglican perspective, and has written a ton on these two guys:

Jesus and the Victory of God

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

And if ~3200 pages isn't quite enough to scare you out of attempting the project, you should also read the first volume in this series, The New Testament and the People of God.

The title for this is a bit misleading; the whole Bible is a collection of written folklore. My (very sadly deceased) old professor wrote a book with tons of examples of this called Holy Writ as Oral Lit. Gilgamesh, being folklore as well, has some parallels to the Bible; think of it as the difference between humans evolving from an ancestor in common with apes as opposed to from apes.

And a nitpick with the article: Gilgamesh is actually a legend. Myths are explanations for how the world and certain things in it came to be, while legends are narratives about an occurrence. For instance, Genesis would be a myth, but Noah's Ark would be a legend. Another common misconception is that either phrase gives a qualification of veracity; neither is synonymous in a scholarly sense with "lie" or "untruth."

I can't remember specifically, but I believe the flood actually appears in several other legends of the time. Since the area was the "cradle of civilization," it's not terribly surprising the story got around to other cultures.

</annoying pedantry>

Bedtime Bible Stories - Explcit!

Awkward Moments Children's Bible

https://www.amazon.com/Reality-God-Problem-Evil/dp/082649241X

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Thought-Thomas-Aquinas-Renaissance/dp/0813209838/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503056834&sr=1-1&keywords=Wippel

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinass-Way-God-Proof-Essentia/dp/0190224800/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503056853&sr=1-1&keywords=Gaven+Kerr

https://www.amazon.com/God-Bible-Philosophers-Aquinas-Lecture/dp/0874621895/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0874621895&pd_rd_r=3WJVB31GTFYYS881ZANK&pd_rd_w=ua9He&pd_rd_wg=z5cMA&psc=1&refRID=3WJVB31GTFYYS881ZANK

Here is the mobile version of your link