A Sea Of Red

anyone read it? i put together a survey for my ss class of what they wanted to learn about and here is what the responses were (class consists of newlyweds up to couples in their late 20's)

1. Atheism vs Creationism
2. Histroy of the Bible (prereformationist period all the way to the development of the english Bible)
3. Objections to Christianty or the belief of God.

we did a study on Case for a Creator with them. Its a good start for people just learning. its a bit simplistic and uses alot of analogies which scientists hate so it is actually pretty well critisized by athiests but the books he references offer alot of irrefutable information/evidence.

finding a good history of the bible was hard but i pieced it together.

this book addresses some objections and such. he addresses the new atheists and also addresses takes care of many of the objections most people have towards religion/God/Christianity.

I haven't read it, but I hear a lot of good things about Keller's book.

Here's a short list of other books that may help:
http://www.discerningreader.com/book-re ... pologetics

Here's a list that has some about the history of the Bible:
http://www.discerningreader.com/book-re ... al-studies

Discerning Reader is simply a book review site by a solid group of people, so the reviews are very good. Also, check with Phoenix, I'm sure he's got a ton of suggestions.

Keller has some good stuff in his book. It's not "Mere Christianity" or anything like that, but it's certainly worth a read.

I read it. I liked it. I recommend it.

I haven't read this one yet. I'll have to pick it up sometime. Hopefully, it is better than Strobel's Case for the Creator. That was painful to read.

Karen Armstrong has a good (and concise enough that she arguably overlooks Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) book on the history of the bible:

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Biography-B ... pd_sim_b_4

I'm adding the book to my que. Thanks for putting it out there for discussion.

Two weeks ago I was able to attend Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhatten. The worship service was special because Christ was pre-eminent in Keller's heart and attitude, not to mention the stunning presentation of Mozart's Sonata in D Major by a Carnegie Hall caliber virtuoso.

Keller also has a new book on the horizon, called "Counterfeit Gods", which is being released in late October.

One of the reasons I like Keller is because he is so understated. The entire 'shouting preacher' image has become such a stereotype, and incidentally, such a turn off for many non-believers. Keller is the opposite. It's quite refreshing.

its hard to debate a guy who will agree with your point and then also show you how your point is entirely wrong

Answers in Genesis has good Creationism resources.

kel varson wrote:Answers in Genesis has good Creationism resources.

eh

have you checked out Dinesh D'souza's Whats so great about Christianity? Its not so much about the bible, but still great for a defense of the faith for beginners (some of his arguments get a little childish). Also, Im sure you all know him, but in case not, Ravi Zacharias is another author for these sort of books. I cant think of a specific title, but Michael Rydelnik is a converted Jew who has written a number of books about the history in the bible relating to Jews and Christ as the Messiah, that sort of thing.

through 2 chapters of the reason for God....this book is dominating...

what's the atheism vs. creationism topic supposed to center around?

so far as I can tell, he talks about the flaws in the main arguments against god.

the violence part of it (there are just as many violent instances in the name of atheism as there is religion)
the why is there suffering part of it (free will / how boring would our life be with infinite success?)
chrisianity can't be the one true religion (you telling me there are no absolutes is actually a moral absolute in and of itself [which btw is an awesome stumper])

the great part of defeating the violence part is the fact that the tools they use to condemn and critique christianity and religion come from christianity and religion themselves….so they are using christianity to denounce christianity which doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

RubberMallet wrote:so far as I can tell, he talks about the flaws in the main arguments against god.

the violence part of it (there are just as many violent instances in the name of atheism as there is religion)
the why is there suffering part of it (free will / how boring would our life be with infinite success?)
chrisianity can't be the one true religion (you telling me there are no absolutes is actually a moral absolute in and of itself [which btw is an awesome stumper])

the great part of defeating the violence part is the fact that the tools they use to condemn and critique christianity and religion come from christianity and religion themselves….so they are using christianity to denounce christianity which doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

How is it atheism vs. creationism then if it's just talking about what's wrong with atheism?

flamesbball84 wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:so far as I can tell, he talks about the flaws in the main arguments against god.

the violence part of it (there are just as many violent instances in the name of atheism as there is religion)
the why is there suffering part of it (free will / how boring would our life be with infinite success?)
chrisianity can't be the one true religion (you telling me there are no absolutes is actually a moral absolute in and of itself [which btw is an awesome stumper])

the great part of defeating the violence part is the fact that the tools they use to condemn and critique christianity and religion come from christianity and religion themselves….so they are using christianity to denounce christianity which doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

How is it atheism vs. creationism then if it's just talking about what's wrong with atheism?

really? whats wrong with atheism is whats right with theism

RubberMallet wrote:

flamesbball84 wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:so far as I can tell, he talks about the flaws in the main arguments against god.

the violence part of it (there are just as many violent instances in the name of atheism as there is religion)
the why is there suffering part of it (free will / how boring would our life be with infinite success?)
chrisianity can't be the one true religion (you telling me there are no absolutes is actually a moral absolute in and of itself [which btw is an awesome stumper])

the great part of defeating the violence part is the fact that the tools they use to condemn and critique christianity and religion come from christianity and religion themselves….so they are using christianity to denounce christianity which doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

How is it atheism vs. creationism then if it's just talking about what's wrong with atheism?

really? whats wrong with atheism is whats right with theism

So violence in the name of theism is right yet not in the name of atheism?

he is poking holes in atheism using theistic points. therefore, in order to refute and disable atheism, one must put forth an effort to prove/give an argument for theism.

RubberMallet wrote:

flamesbball84 wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:so far as I can tell, he talks about the flaws in the main arguments against god.

the violence part of it (there are just as many violent instances in the name of atheism as there is religion)
the why is there suffering part of it (free will / how boring would our life be with infinite success?)
chrisianity can't be the one true religion (you telling me there are no absolutes is actually a moral absolute in and of itself [which btw is an awesome stumper])

the great part of defeating the violence part is the fact that the tools they use to condemn and critique christianity and religion come from christianity and religion themselves….so they are using christianity to denounce christianity which doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

How is it atheism vs. creationism then if it's just talking about what's wrong with atheism?

really? whats wrong with atheism is whats right with theism

What about agnosticism?

agnostism is equal to atheism. agnosticism is as much as a leap of faith as atheism and theism.

how so? It seems like the lazy way out to me.

RubberMallet wrote:agnostism is equal to atheism. agnosticism is as much as a leap of faith as atheism and theism.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]

"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." [7]

Thomas Henry Huxley

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[9]. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...."

Please tell me how agnosticism, which is based on a method rather than a feeling or belief, is equal to atheism, which is based on belief..

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2]

LUconn wrote:how so? It seems like the lazy way out to me.

saying it doesn't matter is actually still saying "this is what i believe". agnostisim isn't "i don't know" its more of an "i don't care" but its still a profession of faith. there is no way around it. agnostics believe God can't be proven or disproven, so in the practical sense they basically don't believe in God. at least one doesn't exist to them.

oh and flamesbball you are hilarious

RubberMallet wrote:

LUconn wrote:how so? It seems like the lazy way out to me.

saying it doesn't matter is actually still saying "this is what i believe". agnostisim isn't "i don't know" its more of an "i don't care" but its still a profession of faith. there is no way around it. agnostics believe God can't be proven or disproven, so in the practical sense they basically don't believe in God. at least one doesn't exist to them.

haven't done much to convince me to believe you over the likes of TH Huxley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc.