Best biblical hermeneutics books according to redditors
We found 154 Reddit comments discussing the best biblical hermeneutics books. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 154 Reddit comments discussing the best biblical hermeneutics books. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Unfortunately, there are some... that said, they're nowhere near as prevalent as they are in the GOP, and they're pretty clearly a "different" kind of insane.
Example: Maryland rep Frank M. Conaway Jr.
Ancient Egyptian carvings. The Book of Revelations. Canned chicken. These are some of the topics that Del. Frank M. Conaway Jr. has discussed in more than 50 rambling videos that he has uploaded to YouTube in recent weeks. "Am I living in a box? The cross. The Rubik's Cube," Conaway says in a video titled "talking horse." "Am I living in a hologram? Holographic universe."
He's also the author of the best selling book "Baptist Gnostic Christian Eubonic Kundalinion Spiritual Ki Do Hermeneutic Metaphysics: The Word: Hermeneutics"
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Kundalinion-Spiritual-Hermeneutic-Metaphysics/dp/0595206786
No, this isn't a joke.
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 do not know a whole lot about bible authorship, as im only 15.
Then I highly encourage you to explore more about the beliefs and culture you identify with. Don't just go to Christian sources, or atheist sources, but historical sources. Karen Armstrong's The Bible: A Biography is a short history written by a religious person but with an emphasis on accurate history. I also encourage you to try reading the Bible with an open mind. Don't just interpret it how you were told to by other people, read what's actually on the page, and try thinking about it objectively. You'll be surprised at what's actually in there.
> i am not ruling scientific theories invalid. i am saying i dont believe they are true.
There's no difference there. It's common for people to say "Well, that's just what I believe" as if that statement means anything. What we assert is what we believe, and it is either true or false. Don't get into the habit of pretending that truth is less important than opinion.
>i cant prove anything. you cant prove anything either. you cant prove the big bang (or whatever you think about the beginning of the universe) you cant prove evolution,
You are very wrong as to both of those. Anyone who told you that we don't have direct and specific proof of both those things, is either misinformed or lying. Basic high school science should have taught you that we can literally see the remnants of the big bang since light moves at a set rate, and we can literally see evolution occurring in terms of speciation and major physical changes over generations being observed in animals. You have the internet, there's no justification for not exposing yourself to this information.
If you continue to assert things that are unambiguously wrong with readily available proof, as wrong as claiming the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, then you shouldn't be surprised if voicing your beliefs leads people to think that you are stupid. Stupidity doesn't require being a slow learner, it can involve deliberate ignorance.
> it is impossible to prove anything regarding the beginning of the universe. my point is that i believe that the christian god created the universe.
It's not impossible, you are merely saying that because, if truth can be known and has value, then your belief seems silly. The only source claiming a Christian God made it, also gets all the details of how it was made completely wrong. Again, if you have a problem with people thinking of Christians as crazy or idiots, the best way to deal with it is not having crazy or foolish beliefs that contradict known facts which are obvious to everyone else.
That's a false either/or. Christians believe both that the Bible is inspired, and also that it must be interpreted (since all literature must be interpreted). As for how to interpret it, the Christian community must wrestle with the best way to do this. And we have. And we continue to do so.
While the method might appear arbitrary to an outsider, it is anything but. Its too complicated to spell out the actual methodology to you in this format. But if you're interested in how Christians interpret the Bible can you check out primers such as this one or this one. Both of these are good introductory texts in regards to the consistent (i.e. non-arbitrary) manner of biblical interpretation.
The only thing I would add to these books which sometimes doesn't get mentioned enough, is that Christians (the majority of us anyways) believe that interpretation belongs to the theological community in the most technical sense. While we encourage people to read the Bible individually, the theological community serves as a checks-and-balances, or a self-correcting mechanism. If we insist on only interpreting things alone, its too easy to let our own personal biases slip in, and then we are in danger of "picking and choosing." But by doing our interpretation in community (e.g. peer-reviewed journals, etc.), we help to eliminate much of this.
God's Word Alone by Matthew Barrett
Scripture Alone by James White
Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible by Joel Beeke, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, Ray Lanning, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Derek W. H. Thomas, and James White
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.
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:
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 Hermetic and Alchemical Writings Of Paracelsus has to be up there.
>2009 reprint of 1910 edition. Two Volumes Bound into one. Arthur Edward Waite was a scholarly mystic who wrote extensively on occult and esoteric matters, and was the co-creator of the Rider-Waite Tarot deck. Waite's name has survived because he was the first to attempt a systematic study of the history of western occultism - viewed as a spiritual tradition rather than as aspects of proto-science or as the pathology of religion. Paracelsus (1493-1541) was an alchemist, physician, astrologer, and general occultist. Born Phillip von Hohenheim, he later took up the name Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim, and still later took the title Paracelsus, meaning "equal to or greater than Celsus," a Roman encyclopedist from the first century known for his tract on medicine. Paracelsus pioneered the use of chemicals and minerals in medicine and is considered among the most important alchemists of the period.
Here's a scan of the 1910 version:
https://archive.org/details/hermeticalchemic00para
The reviews of his book on Amazon are hilarious.
Edit: I spent a couple minutes reading the Amazon "Look inside!" preview.
These books are not worth the ISBN numbers they were assigned.
If you're interested in reading a good work on this subject, there's Christian Smith's 'Bible Made Impossible'.
From the Amazon description:
>Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible's exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims...
> Baptist Gnostic Christian Eubonic Kundalinion Spiritual Ki Do Hermeneutic Metaphysics: The Word: Hermeneutics
From the amazon listing:
"My reseach of the Holy Bible through Rev. S. Green's Baptist Temple incorporated with the martial arts style of Death Ki Do under Grand Master L. R. Butcher came in union to form the sub style of Spiritual Ki Do. In entering the internal styles of the martial arts and pondering the available life experiences lead me to a new term which I relate to the philosophical term "Spiritual Shock" as a form of awareness effect of raising the Brazen Serpent upon the pole of the spine using the Gnostic cypher key in relation to the book of the Apocalypse."
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Kundalinion-Spiritual-Hermeneutic-Metaphysics/dp/0595206786
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
>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 "Look Inside" his first book is jaw-dropping. Check out the table of contents and the "editorial method"...
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.
Hope thats helped a little ! Blessings !
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
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.
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.
https://www.amazon.com/Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Introduction-Interpretation/dp/0830828265
This is what I found on my Dad's desk
He quickly hid it, like a teenage boy ditching a porno mag, but I knew it was because of me...
I just wish he would also look at it objectively, not just from a Christian echo chamber novel.
For the history of medicine, you can't beat the Clio Medica series. They're focused primarily on the period 1600-1900, though, which is probably not what you're looking for. Each volume contains a series of essays which take on a theme from multiple angles (I'm particularly fond of "British Military and Naval Medicine, 1600-1830"). The wide variety of niche topics addressed, the depth to which the topics are analyzed (a 50ish page treatise on the historical development of the truss comes to mind), and the fact that the essays are largely written by authors in the Humanities rather than doctors make this series my go-to source for medical history. Furthermore, the extensive bibliographic information accompanying each essay makes further research pretty easy.
Moving backwards towards Classical medical sources, I'd say an interesting bridge source for you might be the writings of Paracelsus, alchemist and surgeon (really a good place to get a feel for the transition from occult/magical ritual medical practice to the science of medicine that began in the Renaissance). Keep in mind that Paracelsus is an alchemist and writes about his experiments in a very abstract philosophical manner- you'll have to do a lot of work to interpret what he's saying in order to see the themes of medical/chemical/scientific inquiry develop. I think of him more as a philosopher of science/medicine than an actual scientific/medical authority.
The medical historian John Scarborough has written pretty extensively on the subject of the history of medicine in the Classical Mediterranean. If you have access to JSTOR, there are several articles written by him available which you might look into ("Roman Pharmacy and the Eastern Drug Trade" treats with the interplay of Far/Near/Middle-Eastern medicine with Roman medicine, could be a good jumping-off point for further study). I've also heard good things about his Roman Medicine.
For Middle-Eastern and Near-Eastern medicine, if you don't want to flounder around the ritual medicine contained in the mystical texts such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, you're probably going to want to look into the medical documents found in the Cairo Genizah, a collection of fragmentary Jewish texts concerning a vast variety of subjects. If you don't know ancient Hebrew/Arabic/Aramaic and aren't studying at Cambridge (where the collection is stored) see if your librarian can get ahold of Medical and Para-medical Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections or Medical Prescriptions in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Practical Medicine and Pharmacology in Medieval Egypt.
Hope this helps!
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.
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!
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.
Its truly pathetic that an "editorial" like this, which is nothing more or less than christian evangelism, is allowed on Fox News.
> I was mad at my father for beating my mother. I was angry at a man who worked on our farm and sexually abused me from ages 6 to 13. All of this led to me to really despise God, religion and anything to do with the church.
I question whether this is even true. Who "hates God" because they're being abused (unless you were actually being abused by a priest?) Who "hates God" if they are (as he claims he was) an agnostic? It just suspiciously sounds like he's recapitulating (and personalizing) the claim that atheists aren't atheists, they're just people who insincerely deny the existence of god and actually "hate" god. This is a great start, for a "scholar" to even lie (or be lying to himself) about his own origin story.
> The historical evidence really indicated that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day.
Yeah... Pretty sure he's referring to the bible itself. He's being so stingy in this sources! So we have to just take his word for it? Why not unveil (just a little of) this tsunami-like evidence?!
His book is on Amazon, and the reviews (all 5-star) are predictably amusing:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
I'm always amazed how baldly christians phrase their own dilemma:
> According to the Apostle Paul, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false, and Christians are to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). But if Jesus did rise, then Christianity is true.
christians have a very difficult time convincing me that jesus was ever taken off the cross. the point of the execution by crucifix wasn't just the torture unto death, it was leaving the corpse on the crucifix to decay and to desecrate the corpse. it's perplexing that this historical fact isn't widely known.
>Name me fucking one.
I said I would, and I am:
Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?
Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
Nonsense of a High Order:: The Confused World of Modern Atheism
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris Are Fundamentally Wrong
The Atheist Delusion
Furthermore though, Christian rehtoric is often explicitly anti-atheist in its messaging without having to be specifically about that. They attiribute morality to themselves and imply that atheists are necessarily immoral or that their values are the only true way to think. If you want proof of this, you need look no further than how much prejudice there still is against atheists in the U.S. statistically.
Elements of Exegesis the guy is a moderate evangelical, but the ideas here are pretty good.
How to read the Bible for all its worth by Fee and Stuart Great intro to reading the different genres of scripture. Two evangelical scholars.
Invitation to Biblical Interpretation Written by two heavy hitting scholars, it's a big book with a ton of info on how to interpret all parts of scripture.
Grasping God's Word Probably a good place to start as it is a workbook/textbook rolled into one. You get a lot of great info with tons of exercises.
a nice nun did the research to see who wrote what in the bible, and wrote a biography of the bible. that may help to see the man-made in christianity.
I had a professor in seminary, who wrote this book. https://www.amazon.ca/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics-ebook/dp/B0022NGVSI/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535991703&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Bill+webb+slavery
In lecture he talked about how the penalties given in the Bible were the maximum punishment for a crime, and when compared to other cultures were much more compassionate. He also said that in practise it's hard to find maximum punishments being given out.
You may find his book interesting.
It's great to look into the Early church fathers! My recommendations though is to stick to the early early church fathers. Cathodox will often quote "fathers" from later in history after several traditions have already been developed and accepted. Also to remember that even the fathers are but men and can err, which is why when fathers disagree with each other (and they do) we must turn to scripture.
As for book recommendations on Sola scriptura, i haven't yet read them but there is Scripture Alone, Sola Scriptura and Disputations on Holy Scripture
I suggest picking up the book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Good arguments for the Bible and the resurrection.
The answer to this question is the basis for Hermeneutics, and, as such, there is no real way to give you a decent explanation in a reddit-reply. However, I can point you in a few directions that you might find helpful. Be warned: none of this is easy, but it is very, very rewarding.
A great book/primer on the subject (that also directly addresses some of the issues you raised): Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb. This is an excellent place to start.
Here is a (free) video-recorded lecture of an entire seminary-level course on Hermeneutics: Hemeneutics on iTunes-U
That's off the top of my head. Let me know if you need anything else.
There's a book called The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions written by an agnostic Jew. It's not an apologetic work though, just trying to give people of faith some space.
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.
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.
Uh, pretty much all of them. But some gems:
> The New Testament is far and away the best-attested manuscript from antiquity. The next best is Homer’s “Illiad,” for which our earliest extant copy was scribed 500 years after the original writing. For the New Testament, that time lapse is less than 50 years.
She offers no facts whatsoever here. On the contrary, scholars who actually research the bible for a living have shown that this is patently false. See Bart Ehrman or Karen Armstrong for examples.
> While the four Gospel writers chose different events of Jesus’ life to write about, they all gave a clear description of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.
No, they all gave conflicting accounts of important details surrounding his death and resurrection. All one has to do is read the relevant parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to see this. You'd think she's never actually read the bible before.
Reading back, I do not interpret my comments as you've narrated. Can you show an explicit example that shows why you do?
A second reading does not show me that I'm not telling you why I think that way. I guess I'll just try to be more explicit.
Here's how I think. I'm a person who, in their natural state, isn't very reasonable and isn't very logical, like every other human being on the planet (whether they want to admit it or not). I don't think I or anyone else has the cognizance to look at a set of beliefs as broad as Christianity or any other religion and say that it makes completely unfalsifiable claims, especially when there's things like this and this and this and this. I'm not going to go into those books individually and say why I think they're right or wrong. I'm just going to say they offer big boy arguments, believe in something falsifiable, and make arguments towards it. Saying that Descartes or C.S. Lewis had unfalsfiable beliefs is plainly and undeniably false, and worse, is unfair to the fact that they support these arguments with carefully planned logic.
Saying Fred Phelps or the average Bible Belt fundamentalist has unfalsifiable beliefs isn't. So saying the whole kitten kaboodle is unfalsifiable is a sweeping generalization of a broad range of beliefs under the term "religion."
It's just not fair to the people who wrestle with their beliefs and really try to give solid reasons for believing. It puts them in the same category as buck-tooth fundamentalists.
If you want this conversation to continue, I'm going to ask you apologize for attacking my character over something as inconsequential as an internet discussion, and I'm going to further ask you not to do shit like that again. I don't know what kind of filter makes you think any of those statements are "insulting" unless you think it's an insult for someone to say your thinking isn't fair/logical. So far the first and only insults and attacks on character have been made by you. Unless you consider "I guess you don't hear a whole lot of profound statements" a pretty big insult. I agree that it was nasty & mean to say and I've apologized to the person affected.
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.
Yikes, I mixed up the books! Case for Christ is a great book but the one I was thinking about was this one
http://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
Thanks for pointing out my error, this book is the one I was thinking of. I got the author's name mixed up too. Anyways, this book is very unbiased, just laid out information and evidence meant to let the reader decide based on the info in the book.
Add these to your reading list:
Specifically on morality:
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.)
> https://www.amazon.com/Chariot-Bethsheba-Ashe/dp/1530524431
thanks
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:
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.
Really good book on the subject.
>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.
These are all good books, but they are philosophical. Here are a few historically-based works that might help set the context of the debate. TGD is interesting, but Dawkins is bad both at philosophy and history.
The Myth of Religious Violence - William Cavanaugh
I've seen this book criticized a few times on Reddit by users who haven't read it. You'll hear the claim that religion is the most violent force in the world, which Cavanaugh shows is a really slippery statement to hold.
Warning: it is empirical (historically speaking) to a fault. You may want to put it down because of all the examples he gives. Also, if you haven't read an academic as opposed to popular history book before, be aware that professional historians operate very differently when trying to uncover a narrative.
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions - David Berlinski
Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construct - Michael Ruse
Scientists are human and, therefore, fallible. Some are very fallible, as both these books show. Understand that men like Dawkins, Hawking, and Gould have their own agendas.
Berlinski's book is great--he's a really talented writer--but insulting to atheists, though I would say no more insulting than TGD is to the religious. Ruse's work is more balanced but definitely critical of certain 20th century scientists. He really takes Karl Popper to task. Both these authors are irreligious, by the by.
"The Presbyterian Rebellion" - Richard Gardiner
The British nickname for the American Revolution was the "Presbyterian Rebellion." It is misleading to say that America's founders were aiming for a total secular society, and many who were involved in the revolution saw it as a war for freedom to practice their own religion, as this dissertation points out.
This is reddit, so this post will suffer one of two deaths: either it will be picked to pieces or ignored. I don't know which is worse.
> Why would it? I don't have a problem with it.
Because the credibility of the bible is based on two assumptions:
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.
I had to read this for a class:
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Hubbard, Blomberg
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Biblical-Interpretation-Revised-William/dp/0785252258
It's a pretty straightforward guide to understanding the nuance and context of passages within their genre. If you diligently read this whole book, you're bound to have some basic exegetical skills.
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.
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.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI
I'd suggest reading Crucifixion of the Warrior God or the popular version, Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence by Gregory Boyd. You can also watch an overview. Basically, in light of the Revelation of Christ on the Cross, as the ultimate Revelation, we must look at God through Jesus. To answer your question, God allowed the Israelites to read Him into things.
A really interesting, comprehensive scholarly work on the clobber verses is Lings' Love Lost in Translation It's written by a linguist so its approach is meticulous, examining words in almost microscopic detail. It's impressive to say the least. Also really really cheap in its electronic edition on Amazon. My only complaint is that some of its vocabulary is awkward; hey dude, you're a Christian writing about Christian scriptures, there's no need to use "First/Second Testament".
A resource that strenuously, meticulously argues against LGBT inclusion is Robert Gagnon's tome The Bible and Homosexuality. People should be aware of it since it is cited often as an authoritative, scholarly "final word" on the subject.
Read quite a bit of Husserl in my day. If you're looking to combine his phenomenological method with hermeneutics, I'd suggest you'd start first with the Hermeneutics Reader, and then read Burt C. Hopkins's The Philosophy of Husserl. Not sure if his phenomenological method is appropriate for your interest in workplace mobbing. Maybe dig deeper into Heidegger or read some Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
There's a lot of that going around
http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Delusion-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371528897&sr=8-1&keywords=the+devil%27s+delusion
My mum loves her Kindle :-) I don't read enough to justify one, even though my inner geek wants one lol
Paper Back
Kindle
If you buy the paperback, might be better to buy it here as then all the money will go the the author's apologetic ministry. It's a little cheaper too, not sure after postage though.
I've had trouble getting through the actual Bible, but I have read the entire Brick Testament and cross-checked most of the comics with Bible Gateway to make sure I'm getting the correct context. I'd say I have a decent understanding of the text, enough to carry on a conversation but not enough to quote specific passages off-hand. I've also read The Bible: The Biography by Karen Armstrong so I have a good understanding of how the Torah and the New Testament were put together.
Anyway, I'm only asking for your opinion. I'm not the one building my life around a book. Lately a lot of Christians are coming to r/atheism to apologize for the behavior of other Christians. The problem for me is, most of these bad apples are working off a more literal interpretation of the Bible. There's a lot of bad stuff in there! How do you justify that? And if there are things in the Bible that no longer apply to modern people, why not re-write the Bible? Why hasn't God done that?
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.
Hey, I know this is late, but if you're still watching this post, I have a couple books for you. I have no idea what you mean by "middleweight-heavy," so I'll just list a few I use and teach from. I'm working on my M.Div. at a Southern Baptist Seminary, so you know I'm not a Ph.D. or an expert.
And two I'm not as familiar with, but should be interesting for you:
To be honest, I haven't read Traina, and am not sure what sorts of things you've been getting from DTS, so I hope this is helpful. And if not, maybe it will be for someone clicking here to see what books people recommend.
Thanks again for your reply! I'm glad we've been able to talk about this sincerely for so long.
You seem to have misunderstood me again, and the attrition will soon cause me to quit. I can't keep repeating myself, I don't have the time: I am not appealing to God as an explanation of that which can otherwise be explained. I do not make unfounded assumptions. Since explanations are what we are after, there could be such a thing as "naturalism-of-the-gaps". Here's one of the defeaters for naturalism if you're interested.
> I'm only making this argument because you seem to think other peoples' conclusion has any weight.
Not what I said.
> spontaneous generation
that was a dead end. Doesn't mean the only alternative is God, of course. For all we know transpermia could be possible. I think Flew's rationale was that because it is impossible here, and in light of just how impossible it could be for life to arise from inanimate matter, it seems there's no way it could have happened elsewhere. It seemed to him a more complicated assumption than God's existence.
> I don't know how you can claim this world is so good to humanity that it MUST have been created for us. That's not to say that all the horrible things out there somehow undo the good things but I don't see how all these good things you see undo the bad.
I didn't say that either.
> Additionally, I have my own hypothesis that loving and appreciating nature has lead to discovery, mental health, and invention and therefore is an evolutionary advantage.
The notion that a designer deigned it lead to science because we presumed the universe is intelligible and that science could even be done.
> Us humans are slaves to our emotions but some of us like you and me are lucky enough to be capable of focusing on the good, but it's important to admit that not everyone feels this way.
Be there a realm of good, varying apprehension of that realm does none to the existence of that realm anymore than carrying apprehension of the natural world decides whether it is there or not.
> If you've ever known someone with chronic depression you'd agree that some people just can't focus on the good.
I have chronic depression, I know plenty. I'm glad there is such a thing as evil and sadness and pain, for if they did not exist then good would be meaningless. If life were pure prosperity, what would prosperity even be? All the pain in my life has made the good sweeter, the darkness made the light brighter.
> In this sense alone, being a positive and appreciative person can be beneficial for the survival of both individuals and our society collectively.
As I said, I'm aware there is this thing called science. However, regarding the argument, I don't care what else we learn about the natural world. Evolution by natural selection? Awesome! I'm so glad and amazed that there exists something that could lead to this.
> If you want to bring up the opinion philosophers and the masses of humanity as proof of anything I will have to bring up scientists.
Which ones, Sir Isaac Newton or the Nobel prize winner from two sessions ago--both Christian? Does a scientist speaking outside of his field of expertise provide meaningful ethos? If it does I don't think it helps your side. Einstein and Michiow Kaku are pantheists--far more than you have considered. So the most accomplished scientists can believe in the supernatural.
Now I was giving Christian philosophers as my example because, unlike scientists, they invest their skills and research into issues such as the validity of Christian belief. Meanwhile, scientists may be intelligent but are preoccupied with and trained for studies that are irrelevant to the validity of Christianity. Outside of being a scientist, scientists are normal people. i.e. Harvard--of all places-- has a majority of academic who in the very least believe in a "higher power".
> Scientists are, by a vast majority, atheist.
Most believe in something supernatural, but it's not always a god. I explained how the misconception of what evidence would imply God's existence, in tandem with the emergence of the classical atheists, has caused secularization at large in academia today. Let's not forget that for the expression of this "higher power" the Christian God was the outlet for most. We wouldn't have colleges today, had the Christians not founded them.
Since you are an agnostic atheist I think you'll find this book, written by a likeminded author, enlightening.
I don't remember appealing to God with a cosmological argument but that seems to be your assumption. I think you misunderstand. I empathize with Einstein and Dr. Kaku (one of the leading advocates of string theory today) on this point: it did not have to be this way, there are an infinite number of ways existence could have been--for it to be this seems it has been chosen. I just disagree with them that because God cannot be found within this creation he is not personal.
> and assert some veritable wizard in the sky as the answer. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just an apt parallel to what you're positing as a reasonable conclusion, whether you admit it or not.
He is not "in the sky", He created the heavens and the earth--all of it. People believe in God for very different reasons than they do a wizard, unicorn, or whatever because He is an explanation for natural phenomena--in some cases the best explanation, whether we like it or not. Anyway, here's an essay you might like. And another
I replied to my previous reply, in case you didn't notice.
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.
> God killed people in the OT
You may be very interested in this book.
You speak like you understand all the complexities of this world, but you don't, because if you did, you would understand that all of the complexities of this world eventually lead to a clear distinction between good and evil found in the Bible. You can call my ideas BS, I can call your's BS, but I'm sure you study of the Bible has been limited at best - most likely from a wide range of sources with wide ranges of pagan influenced doctrines. I can understand how you would want to quickly dismiss Christianity because of the hypocrisy found in many of its members, but the sin present in the world today doesn't disprove the truth that it all ultimately points to. Here's a great place to start learning: http://www.ligonier.org/
Cross species evolution is a hoax. I used to be convinced of it until I really delved into each science and realized it was all based on faith, and the people in control of scientific journalism hold to it like a religion. It has never been proven. A great book to read is this: https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523138554&sr=8-1&keywords=devils+delusion
When I was an undergraduate philosophy major I took an interest in the philosophy of language. The class itself was called "Hermeneutics and Deconstruction," where we learned and read through texts about hermeneutics before going on to deconstruction. That might be an easier place to start... see here.
Sure. The Genesis Wheel: https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Wheel-other-hermeneutical-essays-ebook/dp/B07TT4N5ZZ
And Chariot:
https://www.amazon.com/Chariot-Bethsheba-Ashe/dp/1530524431
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:
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.
> [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 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.
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
Good news! It appears that Boyd is releasing a popular summary of these books.
What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
Life After Death: The Evidence by Dinesh D'Souza
The New Evidence That Demand a Verdict by Josh McDowell
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.
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:
Edit: formatting
Edit 2: add a book
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!
And if after reading it you still don't believe...
Then return to this thread and comment
Who are you voting for instead that will be better?
Also, reminder that Frank Conaway Jr. is literally crazy.
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
Both of these books discuss it:
A History of God
The Bible: a biography
Here is the mobile version of your link
You could also take a look at Crucifixion of the Warrior God, by Gregory Boyd if you like really academic works, or Cross Vision, by Gregory Boyd if you prefer something aimed more at laypeople. Both books deal with the same thesis and differ only in how detailed it gets.
If you prefer podcasts Homebrewed Christianity has an episode talking to Boyd about those books that will give you an overview of them.
> ...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.
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.
Here is another good book for you:
https://www.amazon.com/Love-Lost-Translation-Homosexuality-Bible/dp/1466987901
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.
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:
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
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.
The guy's a nutbar (seriously, take a gander at this), but Broken Windows polices like Stop-and-Frisk do work. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Actually, I think God's interactions with humans have been progressively redemptive. He also has progressively revealed more over the story of scripture.
If one permits a premise that God is just and does what is right, then if he exercises punishment before people die naturally from old age, he is just giving what is deserved, and not withholding an account until after the end of a normal lifespan.
If talking about "innocent" people, I'd say that some people actually gained a better community by joining Israel. Others did not. Some I'm sure we're treated poorly. At the fault of their masters. Slavery in America isn't the same as slavery of ancient Mideast.
But, overall, I do believe that there really is a progressive, redemptive movement by God throughout scripture.
I really appreciated the argumentation in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619
Scripture Alone by James White is a book that discusses this specific idea (called sola scriptura)