What is Reddit's opinion of
Mere Christianity?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
38 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
The popular author and former atheist, C.S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity explains that Jesus really left us three options: Jesus as Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. I guess he didn't consider Zombie.
But I'll say this. Nearly all of the closest witnesses to Jesus resurrection went on to die horrific deaths bearing witness to it to the end. No person will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, or for that matter, the fiction of a 'zombie'.
Just to preface for anyone reading: I would really like to not encourage people to find their faith through drug use. I had a similar experience to you and we're not really alone in this. As an atheist about 5 years ago, I got very deep into experimenting with LSD in college. My reality was destroyed and I came out lost, looking wherever I could for answers. I got into stoic philosophy and alternative religion, which seemed to prescribe answers, but it still felt incomplete, and my soul wasn't satisfied. It wasn't until after I endured an identity struggle that lasted for up to 4 years, partook in all manners of self harm, and read some Christian apologetics that I came to the realization of where I would find the truth I hungered for.
We live in a world of suffering and death. Choose mercy and life. It isn't an easy thing to do, but you will thank yourself a million times over for living in a state of grace. Best of luck to you
Edit: here is a good starting point. Also available for free as an audiobook on youtube.
Lol. Trump calmly, fully in control, matter of factly shared the facts with this tool. Calling someone out on their lies and bs is not a meltdown. Yall seriously need to get a grip on reality. It is so sad to see these kinds of foolish posts because all they do is serve to spread stupidity to the gullible and obtuse.
I highly recommend you use whatever actual gumption and courage you have left and read this book.
You can dispute all the evidence, we aren't going to come to any agreements here. I think still it is obvious that everything around us happened by design rather than a series of random events. You do not want God to exist and it is clouding your thinking. I am not the world's greatest apologist so please don't just think that because I could not give you a satisfactory answer everything is settled.
These questions have been asked and answered for millenia by people much smarter than both of us. If you are truely a man of science searching for the truth then I recommend reading some classic books on these topics.
Here is one I think is a good intro
Mere Christianity
One final thing on the 5 ways, you are correct that those first 3 are related, but the key is that they prove with certainty that there has to be something which had no cause. However, a thing which has no cause means that it has always existed and existence itself requires this being to be. The assertion that a thing could arise from nothing is not possible. If you dispute the principle that something cannot come from nothing then you are essentially denying the concept of science - effects have causes. So if you are claiming that the universe began to exist, at the Big Bang, then the universe could not be this special uncaused thing.
I would highly recommend that you pick up a book by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity. It pulls together the philisophical and also human experience of the author's thought process of evaluating his faith. Lewis was an agnostic and at one point atheist who slowly came to faith later in life as a professor at Oxford. While not catholic (Although most think he was close to swimming the Tiber), I think it's worth a read if you're investigating the christian faith in general. As far as why Catholic, I agree with all below on the Church being the original church that emerged from the Apostles, and that the beauty of the sacraments and repetitive unchanging nature of the catholic experience is edifying and grounding to my otherwise crazy life.
Tl;dr: pastor, bible, catechism, mere Christianity and other books, the bible project, and other podcasts.
You should really consider talking to your pastor or a pastor at your church. Either go up to one and ask for a meeting, or go through the church email address or whatever contact method you have. Many protestant churches have membership or intro classes that explain these difficult,but important topics, and the Catholic church and orthodox church have formal classes. Reading the bible is Great, it is the most important thing to have besides a saving relationship with Christ. but having someone mature who can help you and lead you is immensely helpful,it's why they're there. A lot of these things are difficult to understand, and reading the bible often leads to more questions before it answers them. Find a teacher (or a few) that you trust to help explain them,then see of they line up with scripture as you grow more acquainted with it.
Catechisms are also helpful. They cover the basics in a question and answer format. There are also lots of podcasts that talk about this stuff as well. Books, videos, everything. C.S. Lewis is famous for explaining faith well, mere christianity is a great start. I have found the bible project youtube channel to be particularly helpful when reading and trying to understand the bible. It gives outlines of the books and helps frame the confusing language in an understandable way. John piper has a podcast "ask pastor john", but these are from one very specific view on Christianity called Calvinism and are very specific. Keep that one in your back pocket for now. Hope that helps supplement the answers here and give you direction. I've definitely had the confusing times where I don't know where to begin,I hope this makes that a smaller period of time for you. Pm me as well if you want additional resources.
I haven't read it in a long while, but CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is a very readable introduction to the faith that deals with a lot of common anxieties. It's a very common book, so if you don't want to buy it you can likely find it in your local library.
Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis is a good choice.
Not sure about how deep of a book you want.
Mere Christianity. I think probably the best Christian apologetic there is. Really understandable and approachable about why we believe the things we believe.
Here are a few that might interest you.
https://strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450724094&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+by+c.s.+lewis
Catholicism & Reason: Creed & Apologetics by Edward J. Hayes
Anthony Flew's "There is a God" http://www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304
It’s very important to question your faith. It’s how you grow spiritually. Don’t be unduly afraid of offending God. He wants you to grow in knowledge and wisdom.
If you don’t know why you believe in God - check out the evidence. Here are some good places to start on the Christian side:
Thomas Aquinas’s five philosophical arguments for the existence of God
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)
C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” (especially the first quarter of the book)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060652926
Also, here are two very popular contemporary books that make the historical case for the divinity of Jesus, and also address the existence of God.
Josh McDowell’s “More Than a Carpenter
Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ”
Have fun exploring! Happy reading!
Mere Christianity:
AMAZON USA:
AMAZON CANADA:
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is a wonderful primer of the fundamentals!
An excellent primer is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis!
Hi, I recommend these books, they can give a solid and strong foundation on the Christian Faith. Its justification from reason, philosophy, history etc. Check them out, you won't be disappointed.
https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
Orthodoxy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087200334/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_g_MN5HZ5TGZM429S33QWV1
This one is fun and enlightening
Socrates Meets Jesus: History's Greatest Questioner Confronts the Claims of Christ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830823387/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_g_0Y7AH3AS2880NY8ZSB4X
As far as "pitching Catholicism" goes, I would say perhaps you're being unwittingly flippant. On the chance that you actually do care about an authentic examination of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, may I suggest this.
Alpha invites people to have a meal together a few times, discuss the pros and cons of Christianity, discuss what Christians believe, in a low pressure environment, and you get an authentic rather than a distorted picture of the faith that you can respond to (or choose not to). It originated in the Anglican Communion, but it has been embraced by Rome (with a few extra sessions added that gently correct anything that was weakly or wrongly conveyed by the core sessions). I tend to think of it as a kind of "Mere Christianity" converted to a series of meals and discussions.
God doesn't force himself on people.
I mean he did show up as Jesus and look how that turned out. What makes you think it would be any different if Jesus would come again today? If you had a personal vision of him, would you believe? Or would you dismiss it as a hallucination? If it was a vision that everyone had at the same time, wouldn't you think the very next day there were claims of mass-psychosis? Not to mention that this would send the whole world into turmoil, as another one pointed out in detail in this thread. And what about the next generation and the one after them? What would stop them from dismissing it?
If he showed himself in such a way that there was absolutely no doubt about his existence, chances are that you had no choice but worship him, because you'd be so overwhelmed by his presence (think of those love potions from the fairy tales). I mean, look around. God created the whole universe - he has to be awesome.
After all, God does reveal himself to people, just not in the way we would think. I think C.S.Lewis has put it beautifully:
>When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others—not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one.
You can put this another way by saying that while in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself (things like microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man’s self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred—like the Moon seen through a dirty telescope. That is why horrible nations have horrible religions: they have been looking at God through a dirty lens.
God can show Himself as He really is only to real men. And that means not simply to men who are individually good, but to men who are united together in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another. For that is what God meant humanity to be like; like players in one band, or organs in one body.
Consequently, the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together. Christian brotherhood is, so to speak, the technical equipment for this science—the laboratory outfit. That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting time. Like a man who has no instrument but an old pair of field glasses setting out to put all the real astronomers right. He may be a clever chap—he may be cleverer than some of the real astronomers, but he is not giving himself a chance. And two years later everyone has forgotten all about him, but the real science is still going on.
>
>C.S. Lewis, <em>Mere Christianity</em> (1952; Harper Collins: 2001) 164-165.
I recommend reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if you're interested in learning about the heart of Christian belief, it's a pretty short read and it is very engaging, plus Lewis is much more elegant than I am.
I'll also link two handy short animated videos on God, and Jesus particularly.
God(8 minutes)
Who is Jesus (1 minute)
It's been showing up on my recommendations, too. I guess it's about time I watched it...
>Where in the bible does God state his plans...
Nowhere. It's implied and inferred. There's a common idea in story-telling called "show, don't tell", where explicitly revealing information (especially motivations) is seen as a sub-par technique. Next time you watch a movie you consider good, ask yourself at what point the motivation of the main character is made explicit. It probably wasn't, and yet you still understood it. The Bible works the same way.
>It would be dishonest to say that one without faith can’t live the same virtuous life expected of someone with faith.
Agreed, though genuine Christians tend to be more virtuous than they otherwise would have been. Mere Christianity make that point in book 3.
>You can be a good person without God,
That depends on what you mean by good. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's a shallow understanding of mankind's propensity towards evil. We may not need organized religion to do good, but I do think we need God to be good. But we can agree to disagree.
>goodness predates the Christian God.
If God is real, then that is definitionally false. If not, then it's only saying that objective morality predates a particular fictional character.
>To which god did they worship? It certainly wouldn’t have been the Christian one.
Why not?
>There is nothing in Genesis that indicates the snake was a deity
Well... not explicitly in this passage, but there is good reason from other passages to conclude this. I recommend The Unseen Realm for a scholarly explanation.
>he is the one to set it all in motion
Well, yes, but I don't think that means we can blame him for the consequences of our free choices, even though it was his choice to give us free choice. The Problem of Pain does a better job of explaining this than I can.
>yes, by way of temptation.
Tomato, tomato (hm... that doesn't quite work in text...). I suppose you could make the distinction that the difference is in intention, even if the action is the same. You could argue that the purpose of temptation is to get one to do evil, while the purpose of testing is to make you grow. In that case, God tested them, and the snake tempted them. I don't think it's worth too much angst, though.
>Who knows but it didn’t begin with the Christian God.
I wouldn't put much stock in her point about Greek myths, but that's quite an assertion. It's entirely possible that both stories are referring to some half-remembered event in the distant past. I'm not saying it's true, only that it's not out of the question.
Read Mere Christianity. If there’s anything that you don’t understand about Christianity, that you doubt, or that you feel there is little to no logical backdrop for, you will find it in C. S. Lewis’s writing.
Then read a Pilgrims regress.
Mere Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060652926/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_y9ZfCbZ0C53F4
The Pilgrim's Regress https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HU5NG36/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_a-ZfCb7D1M94P
As a young adult, I found my faith wavering, and that I had many questions. It was C. S. Lewis, as well as a mentor or two, that helped to provide insight into the depth, and importantly the coherence, of the Christian worldview. Ranging from morality to causality, sharpening the way I view people and love them, with Christ in me.
And finally, one of my favorite quotes the I think qualifies Christianity very clearly, and concisely by Lewis from Mere Christianity: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
And I’m mostly a lurker here on Reddit. But I think it’s safe to assume that if you have any questions, this a place to ask them without fear of repercussions.
Thanks again for the great questions! I'll answer your question about other resources at the end. We believe that the Bible is infallible because, quite frankly, it tells us so and it also tells us that it is the Word of God. (See 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). As for Galatians 5:22, we believe that the fruits of the spirit are gifts more so than tools and that when the Bible talks about our lives bearing "fruit," these are the qualities that should be visibly present in our lives. We tend not to rely on feelings to discern the Spirit, because the Bible tells us that our hearts are deceitful and cannot be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9). This is why we place such a large emphasis on using Scripture to discern the Spirit.
As for other resources on the Holy Spirit, here are some articles that might be useful: Lord, Fill Me With Your Spirit and We Believe in the Holy Spirit. If you want to delve into some books, I suggest Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and The Holiness of God by RC Sproul (the latter of which completely changed how I view God and my walk with Christ). I hope this helps, as I'm certainly not a theology expert, but thanks for the great questions!
>I don't need to. The assertions is that a physical thing can't create another physical thing. That is demonstrably untrue. You're placing restricting characteristics, not me.
It's not that a physical thing can't create another physical thing (even though it would actually be a physical thing creating a physical thing out of nothing), it's that the werewolf, a physical thing, would have nowhere to be while creating the universe, and no time to do it in.
>If a wearwolf doesn't exist, it can be whatever definition I'd like. Just like your god.
No this is idiotic. The word werewolf has a definition. You can't just change the definition however you'd like. If you can, then the conversation is meaningless because you'll just change it to be exactly like god, and then we're not talking about werewolves anymore.
> I would need to know why you think anything is likely in order to demonstrate why my wearwolf is likely. You would have to present your argument for why god is likely to have created the universe. I can then replace god with anything, and the argument will probably not change, if it's any of the popular ones. To be clear. Any argument I present would be a straw man of whatever you actually believe God is. I don't know how else to explain this.
Wrong. What I have to do is show why a werewolf is less likely to have created the universe than god, and I have. You don't seem to have anything to say in response.
>It is informed. Not sure that infants have developed morals, but I'm sure you have a well thought out argument on why slavery and genocide are cool.
I never said slavery and genocide are cool, I said you have an infantile understanding of religion.
>They're equally likely within the context of an argument for the likelihood of any being creating a universe. I personally don't think the likelihood of either is even measurable. If you say god is likely, because of reasons. I could replace god with a wearwolf, and the reasons wouldn't need to change.
Yeah you keep saying this and it's not true. You get that you're supposed to be making an argument, right? All you're doing is repeating that they're same over and over, and not explaining how. Prove to me that they're the same likelihood. Why are you saying anything else? All you should be doing is proving that, or taking back what you said.
>If a being needs to be capable of creating a universe to create a universe, then that is the only characteristic necessary for creating a universe. Adding additional requirements only makes it harder to prove. My wearwolf can be both a wearwolf and have the ability to create a universe. That ability wouldn't make it less of a wearwolf. It could possibly be more likely, because the characteristics of a wearwolf can be found in nature. Whereas the common characteristics given to a god are found NOWHERE. So what seems like a bigger stretch? But again, if you assert that additional characteristics are required to be capable of creating a universe, the onus is on you to argue that assertion.
The fact that there were men and wolves in nature absolutely does not make it more likely that a werewolf created the universe, because NOTHING about men or wolves would indicate that they can create universes. In fact, we know so much about them that it makes it way less likely. God, being defined as an all-powerful metaphysical being is much more likely to have created the universe, because nothing about the nature of god, as is traditionally defined, prevents it from doing so.
>A omniscient god would know. Otherwise, we could start with any that is measurable and predictable, and work our way towards a reasonable conclusion.
An omniscient god would know what?
>I don't have an argument to present unless you give me your reason for believing a universe creating being is likely at all. Then we can discuss why a wearwolf is as equally as likely as a that being. I have no idea why you think what you think, and I'm not going to guess from a wiki page.
You're very confused. I'm not proving to you that god exists, I'm proving to you that it's more likely that god created the universe than a werewolf. The fact that there is a long line of argumentation for god is itself evidence, because there is no corresponding argumentation for a werewolf creating the universe. If you have some, feel free to present it. Since you flippantly dismissed the fact that I gave you a wikipedia page to introduce you to apologetics, here are some books:
https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333
Plenty of Christian apologists were convinced by Christianity. What do you think would cause a staunch atheist to convert?
>Why do we distinguish between apologetics and philosophy?
Often we don't, and oftentimes a philosopher is an apologist and vice versa.
> Why are so few philosophers theists?
This wasn't the case for most of human history, and I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion out of the current state of secularization in academia.
>If you think you've got something good then by all means share it, but I don't expect to be surprised.
Have you read the following?
<em>Mere Christianity</em> by C.S. Lewis - Lewis was an atheist for most of his life, but later became the most well-known Christian apologist. You might also want to read his autobiography, <em>Surprised by Joy</em>.
<em>The Reason for God</em> by Tim Keller.
<em>The Language of God</em> by Francis Collins - This one is more about how science and religion relate, and it's written by one of the leading scientists of the modern day.
<em>Summa Theologica</em> by Thomas Aquinas This is the original apologetic. If you're alright with some more-serious reading, this would be a great book to have read, both from an intellectual and historical perspective.
Descartes' <em>Meditations</em> While I'm not really convinced by his arguments, Descartes is known as the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for popularizing rationalism, or the use of reason/logic as the chief source or test of knowledge.
<em>The Critique of Pure Reason</em> by Immanuel Kant This is known as "one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy" Quite the opposite of Descartes, Kant actually argues against the notion that we can use reason alone to understand the universe.
Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard - This is definitely not apologetics. However, he was an incredibly Christian philosopher, and is known as the Father of Existentialism (interesting that the founder of existentialism was a devout Christian, though now it is often associated with atheists such as Sarte and Nietzsche).
Here're some resources I could recommend:
Read this first: A basic understanding of what the Bible is. yes, it's a Catholic source, but I believe the material is suitable for all denominations of Christianity.
Here is some information from the USCCB with some more information about the Bible and how to read it. Numbers 5 and 7 are important.
Catholic Answers Live for some general questions about Christianity
Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
You mention you're reading the Bible. Yeah, don't read the Bible cover-to-cover on your first go. It's not recommended. You'll get to Leviticus or Deuteronomy and start scratching your head. Rather, start with the New Testament (specifically one of the Gospels) and read the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) little by little. Here is a short summary of ever book in the Bible. I would recommend skimming through all the Old Testament book summaries so when you actually read the New Testament, things will jump out at you and you'll say "Oh, that sounds familiar!"
Dr. Scott Hahn has a podcast where he looks at the weekly scripture readings and analyses them. I'm not sure if they may be a bit advanced for you, but they're worth a shot
Good luck on your Christian journey! Prayers to you, mate!
Hello, I'm a bit late to this parade (I just heard Dr. Peterson's podcast with Joe Rogan yesterday) but I wanted to weigh in here.
There are a lot of good sources from a variety of Christian viewpoints. Many of the ones already listed are very good, but I don't see anything from my own particular version of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy), so I wanted to suggest two resource for you from that perspective as well as another from C.S. Lewis whose words are held dear by most Christians.
The first is a lecture by Fr. John Behr, the current dean of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. He holds Masters of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University. This one is on YouTube and is 1.5 hours in length. It is called Death, the Final Frontier.There are a couple of minutes of fluff at the beginning but it starts to really roll into something I think Jordan Peterson fans would enjoy at the 3-minute mark. It is ostensibly about death, but it is a great critique of modern western culture viewed through the lens of liturgical Christianity.
This second is a recording of a lecture provided by a former dean of the same seminary that I think cuts to the heart of what Christianity actually means. It is called "The Word of the Cross" by Rev. Dr. Thomas Hopko and is around two hours total and has been broken into four individual sections by an Orthodox podcast publisher:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Lastly, I would direct you toward the writings of C.S. Lewis. When I was a young teenage atheist, his arguments were very persuasive for me and have been very popular amongst most Christians. I know many Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics who have all found their first theological footing in Lewis' work. Mere Christianity is probably the best source to steer you toward, but I think his best ideas can be found in The Abolition of Man, The Great Divorce, and Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. Since you've professed a preference for audio content, I will point you toward a YouTube playlist of the series of BBC radio broadcast lectures that C.S. Lewis gave during WWII that were the core of what later became Mere Christianity.
I'm tempted to also suggest that you read Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kirkegaard, Dostoyevsky, St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many, many others. Enjoy your journey!
https://renovare.org/articles/the-perfect-penitent
I think C.S. Lewis present the atonement in a very understandable, and well thought-out way.
Also you can just buy the whole book here: https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470930744&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity
For books, I would suggest getting her two more books to "get her feet wet" regarding the faith - Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith by Fr. Robert Barron. Most importantly though, pray for her conversion. :)
Man, Myth, Messiah: Answering History's Greatest Question
Both of these books were written by skeptics who reversed their positions based on evidence.
It highly depends on the denomination you wish to join. To become, say, a baptist, you'd just have to attend their services, to my knowledge. To become an Anglican, an Orthodox, or a Catholic, you'd have to receive catechism-esque instruction(that has been my experience, that is, from hearing others experiences), and if you've not been baptised, get baptised(and following that, for Catholics and Anglicans, confirmed, and for Orthodox, chrismated).
I recommend you read the following books to help you on your journey:
Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis.
For Anglicanism, this book should do wonders(the book of common prayer would be useful, too).
For Orthodoxy, this should be up your alley.
This is for Roman Catholicism, unfortunately, I have no experience with this edition.
I would leave you with a quote which helped me greatly when I was investigating Christianity, by John of the Cross.
"In the dark night of the soul, bright flows the river of God." It is a difficult thing to become faithful after being an atheist, but I suggest taking things one step at a time if you are interested in Christianity. Do your research on the various denominations, read through some of the more basic Christian doctrines. Beyond that, visit a local church of your choice. The priest/pastor of it will likely be a better help to you than any people on reddit could. I was in your position for many years, but I implore you to look further.
Non-mobile: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060652926
^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
- Literature:
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
- Online Ressources:
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
- Literature:
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
- Online Ressources:
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
From Joanna Southcott, who claimed to be pregnant with the new Messiah, to Our Lady of Fátima, who allegedly foretold World War II to a Portuguese peasant girl, many Christians have reported that they receive continuing revelation from God; to say nothing of the many religious books that have been written over the centuries, like <em>Mere Christianity</em>, <em>The Imitation of Christ</em>, <em>The Soul's Journey into God</em>, or <em>Confessions</em>. (I'm sure I could take examples from other religions if I knew them equally well.) I don't see why a religion should be seen as somehow dead or static for not adding books like those to their canon of sacred writings.
Ah, OK. I understand now.
If I may, I have to suggest some reading for you: Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis. It explains Christianity, and why Christians are OK with looking both ways crossing the street.
In short, I think it has to do with free will. But I really do urge you to read Mere Christianity. (A version from Google Books. I understand you are very skeptical about religion, especially one that purports that there is a personal God.
But that's the end of an argument. It's like simply saying time travel is theoretically possible, without giving the physics-based argument... seems absurd until you listen to how that conclusion has been reached.
Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for responding. Very interested in the matter.
The most helpful explanation I’ve found is in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
Basically, it’s because God is love.
Have you ever read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? The reason I ask is because that book discusses the feeling of God inside us and how we, as humans, all have this internal feeling of good to intrinsically know what is right (example: It is human nature to help another person in need. That is not a learned behavior.).
Sorry if this appears to lack effort and it seems like I'm just telling you to read a book instead of answering your question. I really think that reading it will give you a good idea of how we can know about God's character and believe that it is right.
Eine ausgewogene Sichtweise kann nur entwickelt werden, wenn beide Seiten gehört werden.
- Literatur:
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
- Online Ressourcen:
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
You, my friend, are in a position of great importance. Allow me to expound on my thoughts of life and where you are at:
There are the people that distract themselves with the trifles of everyday life and fail to ever realize the vanity of their existence. They refuse to think about the decisions they make, the purposes of their daily rituals, the reasons for their desires....but there are those that, due to a variety of possible reasons, do.
I was once in your position. I realized the meaninglessness of waking up everyday, repeating the mundane tasks that offer no meaning. I came to the conclusion (after much kicking and screaming) that the most logical answer to the question of meaning in life lies in God and His Son. Now, perhaps you have been turned off by past shitty experiences of church or christians (and if so, I assure you they are not what Christianity truly is about), but I must emphasize that the adventure of finding God is the greatest journey one can ever take. It gave me meaning and reason to live.
If you choose to partake down the wondrous path of faith, I present to you two good options for the start down the path (in order):
https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926 Free online versions are available by googling
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Made-God-Answers-Questions/dp/0310247101
I end with this: It doesn't hurt to explore. Read the first book, and judge for yourself!
Feel free to PM for any questions, comments, etc.
Popular alternatives to Mere Christianity
Boundaries Updated and Expanded Edition: When to Say Yes, How to Say No To Take Control of Your Life
