Religious Books Worth Reading

[Disir]

Charles Freeman--The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

I like Charles Freeman. I will read anything he does. That's just me.

The Closing of the Western Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What? Mary Beard doesn't like the book? Oh, dear, whatever shall we do?

Get back to me when you read it, Ding.

David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, John Morreall, David Bentley Hart, Glen Bowersock, and Mary Beard all disagreed with Freeman and gave compelling reasons for their beliefs.

I just read the Wikipedia entry. None of those would be classified as "compelling" book reviews. Read the book and get back to me. Otherwise, you really don't have an argument. In fact, one could say that maybe you are doing it wrong.

And he always has a thick section on notes so if you want more information or want to read it for yourself you can hunt it down.

 

[presonorek]

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

Can you prove that Betty White e

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

I’m not actively “doing” anything. Currently I am not building a boat so it wouldn’t make sense for someone to accuse me of building a boat the wrong way.

Why would you suggest that I am doing it wrong? I wasn’t even attempting to do “it”.

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

It? I didn’t know I was doing “it” at all. Whatever you are referencing when you say it, I’m probably not even doing. You could accuse me of building a boat all wrong but if I am not in the process of building a boat then it would sound mighty silly. I’m not on a quest to prove the existence or non existence of God. As I have said that is a waste of time. If a person could prove or disprove God, that would have been accomplished centuries ago. I put proving God on the same list of curing cancer. Yeah. It’s a worthwhile pursuit but I lack the confidence to believe my skills would be useful in that endeavor.

 

[Polishprince]

I am trying to compile a list of twelve necessary books that I should read multiple times throughout my life to become an unofficial expert on the subject of religion. My list is a little short. Help me out with some good suggestions. This is what I have so far:

HCSB Bible
Book of Mormon
Bhagavad Gita
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book of Order (PCUSA)
The Satanic Bible
Qu’ran (probably read it only once)

Is anybody familiar with any of the older books on Puritan theology? They say Charles Spurgeon read scores of books on Puritan theology for fun as a young child. Even though Charles Spurgeon had no formal theological training they say he was highly educated.

The Late Great Planet Earth by Lindsey
The Golden Legend by Varagine
City of God by Augustine
Summa Theologica by Aquinas

 

[presonorek]

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Can you prove to someone what a strawberry tastes like? Or would they have to taste it for themselves to know?

Yes and yes. Yes I could prove what a strawberry tastes like and yes they would have to taste it for themselves. I think the methodology for proving that strawberries exist is not the same for proving the existence of God. If it were that simply God would have been proven long ago and it would have been settled once and for all.

 

[ding]

Charles Freeman--The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

I like Charles Freeman. I will read anything he does. That's just me.

The Closing of the Western Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What? Mary Beard doesn't like the book? Oh, dear, whatever shall we do?

Get back to me when you read it, Ding.

David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, John Morreall, David Bentley Hart, Glen Bowersock, and Mary Beard all disagreed with Freeman and gave compelling reasons for their beliefs.

I just read the Wikipedia entry. None of those would be classified as "compelling" book reviews. Read the book and get back to me. Otherwise, you really don't have an argument. In fact, one could say that maybe you are doing it wrong.

And he always has a thick section on notes so if you want more information or want to read it for yourself you can hunt it down.

Compelling reasons. Such as David C. Lindberg explains the history of science's role in the Middle Ages, where it was preserved by the Christians and monks. He argues that the suggestion that early Christians destroyed science is an outdated myth. He criticizes those, like Freeman, who he believes perpetuate these outdated myths despite conventional scholarship refuting them. Specifically regarding Charles Freeman, Lindberg writes the following: “Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freeman in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”[1]

 

[Disir]

Charles Freeman--The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

I like Charles Freeman. I will read anything he does. That's just me.

The Closing of the Western Mind - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What? Mary Beard doesn't like the book? Oh, dear, whatever shall we do?

Get back to me when you read it, Ding.

David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, John Morreall, David Bentley Hart, Glen Bowersock, and Mary Beard all disagreed with Freeman and gave compelling reasons for their beliefs.

I just read the Wikipedia entry. None of those would be classified as "compelling" book reviews. Read the book and get back to me. Otherwise, you really don't have an argument. In fact, one could say that maybe you are doing it wrong.

And he always has a thick section on notes so if you want more information or want to read it for yourself you can hunt it down.

Compelling reasons. Such as David C. Lindberg explains the history of science's role in the Middle Ages, where it was preserved by the Christians and monks. He argues that the suggestion that early Christians destroyed science is an outdated myth. He criticizes those, like Freeman, who he believes perpetuate these outdated myths despite conventional scholarship refuting them. Specifically regarding Charles Freeman, Lindberg writes the following: “Finally, to demonstrate that such views are alive and well, I quote Charles Freeman in his Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2003): By the fifth century of the Christian era, he argues, “not only has rational thought been suppressed, but there has been a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic, and authority’. It is little wonder, given this kind of scholarly backing, that the ignorance and degradation of the Middle Ages has become an article of faith among the general public, achieving the status of invulnerability merely by virtue of endless repetition.”[1]

Again, read it and get back to me. Strawberry?

 

[ding]

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Can you prove to someone what a strawberry tastes like? Or would they have to taste it for themselves to know?

Yes and yes. Yes I could prove what a strawberry tastes like and yes they would have to taste it for themselves. I think the methodology for proving that strawberries exist is not the same for proving the existence of God. If it were that simply God would have been proven long ago and it would have been settled once and for all.

You can describe the taste of a strawberry all you like but it would never do justice to to what it actually tastes like. Some things you must experience first hand. God is like that. I can tell you all about the wonderful experiences and benefits but until you experience them for yourself it will be meaningless to you. Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

 

[presonorek]

Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

 

[presonorek]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway?

You have me mistaken for someone else. I do not expect any human being past, present, or future to have that capacity. If God is to be proven God will do that. It won’t be a puny mortal.

 

[ding]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

 

[ding]

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

Can you prove that Betty White e

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

I’m not actively “doing” anything. Currently I am not building a boat so it wouldn’t make sense for someone to accuse me of building a boat the wrong way.

Why would you suggest that I am doing it wrong? I wasn’t even attempting to do “it”.

Not if you enter into a relationship with said Creator, it's not.

I have heard this referenced as a personal relationship. If it is personal then wouldn’t it be inappropriate to prove it? If there is a creator it may be possible that He proves himself to some people but not to others. For example: you know for a fact that God exists but I think it is pure bull shit. We are not operating with the same evidence. You sit down and drink coffee with Jesus on a daily basis. I can’t even get Him to hop out from behind the bush where He is hiding to flip me the bird. Naturally you would believe in God just as I would believe in a person’s existence if I drank coffee with them. On the same note you would argue that I made up a person with absolutely amazing attributes that you have never met and is always conveniently unavailable. Neither of us is illogical with our claim. You just have evidence that I don’t have and it is impossible for you to demonstrate it no matter how hard you try.

Maybe you are doing it wrong.

It? I didn’t know I was doing “it” at all. Whatever you are referencing when you say it, I’m probably not even doing. You could accuse me of building a boat all wrong but if I am not in the process of building a boat then it would sound mighty silly. I’m not on a quest to prove the existence or non existence of God. As I have said that is a waste of time. If a person could prove or disprove God, that would have been accomplished centuries ago. I put proving God on the same list of curing cancer. Yeah. It’s a worthwhile pursuit but I lack the confidence to believe my skills would be useful in that endeavor.

It was proven centuries ago. The existence of God can be proven through the light of human reason alone through observations of the material world. Confirmation occurs when one sincerely seeks Him out.

 

[ding]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway?

You have me mistaken for someone else. I do not expect any human being past, present, or future to have that capacity. If God is to be proven God will do that. It won’t be a puny mortal.

That's good. Because no one can help you but you. Maybe one day you will figure it out. Or maybe not.

 

[presonorek]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Of course not. Humans love feeling superior to other humans. You are in an elevated status because God speaks to you but not to me. If he ever started talking to me then we would be equals. That would be no good for you. I wouldn’t expect you to arrange a meeting for me.

 

[presonorek]

It was proven centuries ago.

Oh yeah? Well. Then I guess it is settled. I’m glad the debate is over.

 

[ding]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Of course not. Humans love feeling superior to other humans. You are in an elevated status because God speaks to you but not to me. If he ever started talking to me then we would be equals. That would be no good for you. I wouldn’t expect you to arrange a meeting for me.

There's nothing special about me. There's nothing special about any of us. But I love how you tried to flip that around. You come here looking to show how superior you are for not believing in a magical sky daddy and when you run into more than you bargained for you start projecting. So I have no doubt that you have first hand experience with humans loving to feel superior to other humans.

 

[ding]

It was proven centuries ago.

Oh yeah? Well. Then I guess it is settled. I’m glad the debate is over.

It is for me. I can only assume the reason you are here is to make yourself feel better about your choices. That or to fill your God void. Maybe both.

 

[presonorek]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Of course not. Humans love feeling superior to other humans. You are in an elevated status because God speaks to you but not to me. If he ever started talking to me then we would be equals. That would be no good for you. I wouldn’t expect you to arrange a meeting for me.

There's nothing special about me. There's nothing special about any of us. But I love how you tried to flip that around. You come here looking to show how superior you are for not believing in a magical sky daddy and when you run into more than you bargained for you start projecting. So I have no doubt that you have first hand experience with humans loving to feel superior to other humans.

Yes. Humans love it. I did say that.

 

[ding]

Why do you want me to prove God's existence to you anyway? Aren't you happy being godless?

Hell no I am not happy being godless. I’d love to be friends with the creator of the universe. Who wouldn’t want to have a buddy that is all powerful?

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Of course not. Humans love feeling superior to other humans. You are in an elevated status because God speaks to you but not to me. If he ever started talking to me then we would be equals. That would be no good for you. I wouldn’t expect you to arrange a meeting for me.

There's nothing special about me. There's nothing special about any of us. But I love how you tried to flip that around. You come here looking to show how superior you are for not believing in a magical sky daddy and when you run into more than you bargained for you start projecting. So I have no doubt that you have first hand experience with humans loving to feel superior to other humans.

Yes. Humans love it. I did say that.

Just the ones that love themselves.

 

[presonorek]

the reason you are here is to make yourself feel better about your choices.

Which choices are you referencing?

 

[ding]

the reason you are here is to make yourself feel better about your choices.

Which choices are you referencing?

All of them. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.