Introduction to christianity?

[lokariototal]

what book do you recommend me to introduce myself to christianity. Maybe I'm needing God and spirituality in my life! Maybe I need God! What book do you recommend that might convert me to christianity? (except the bible)

[BienvenuJDC]

No book BUT the Bible is necessary...however, how difficult of reading are you seeking? There are some works that were written in the 1800s, back when people had real vocabularies, but they are harder to read. It also depends on what you already know about the Bible. What are you seeking?

[lokariototal]

No book BUT the Bible is necessary...however, how difficult of reading are you seeking? There are some works that were written in the 1800s, back when people had real vocabularies, but they are harder to read. It also depends on what you already know about the Bible. What are you seeking?

something that changes my life and converts me into a true christian

[BienvenuJDC]

Wow...there are many great books, but I would suggest using the Bible itself. You have to be careful not to be converted to one's form of Christianity...which may not be true Christianity. There is a book called 'The Scheme of Redemption' by Robert Milligan, published by the Gospel Advocate Bookstores in 1977. It explains how Christianity was first laid out through the Old Testament in the promises to Abraham, established in the Jewish race. But any man (and probably every man) will get something wrong. Milligan was a Millennialist, but otherwise it is a good book. It will be hard to find though. I would suggest to stick to non-denominational material as to not be swayed by denominational doctrines.

[The Comedian]

Just about any of CS Lewis's books are great: Mere Christianity and the Screwtape letters being the best, in my opinion. You can also check out Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain, which an autobiographical account of his conversion to Catholicism. You can probably still read my review of Merton's book in the book review section of this forum above.

(I'm not really a Christian myself, but I enjoy a good spiritual or Christian book from time to time, and these titles that I suggested are really good books in addition to your desired subject matter.)

[keilj]

(I'm not really a Christian myself, but

But Preacher is your avatar!!

just kidding - I'm a comic book reader too


what book do you recommend me to introduce myself to christianity. Maybe I'm needing God and spirituality in my life! Maybe I need God! What book do you recommend that might convert me to christianity? (except the bible)


The Bible itself is the first stop. Read the New Testament. (perhaps read Matthew and then skip to Acts and the books after it). Don't trudge through the Old Testament to start with

Also maybe some of Martin Luther King's essays and short books

[The Comedian]

But Preacher is your avatar!!

just kidding - I'm a comic book reader too

:lol: Crazy huh? And I'm most pleased to see a fellow reader of the Ennis/Dillon masterpiece!

[Three Sparrows]

I am so happy you decided to come to God, please don't give up or be discouraged! The Bible is the most important book, but one that really helped me get on my way was The Shack, by William Paul Young. The people in it, by the way, are real, not fictional; some people don't realize that so I thought I would say something. Good luck! I'll be praying for you.

[keilj]

:lol: Crazy huh? And I'm most pleased to see a fellow reader of the Ennis/Dillon masterpiece!

yeah - The Meatman (Odin Quincannon) is my avatar on another Web site

[ktr]

Any poem by Shelley should make u feel closer to the jesus.

[keilj]

Any poem by Shelley should make u feel closer to the jesus.

or Emily Dickinson as well

[Chilly]

I suggest talking with a pastor, he might not necessarily be a book but can answer your specific questions more clearly and direct you to any further Christian works you might like.

[Whifflingpin]

"Any poem by Shelley should make u feel closer to the jesus."

Curious, was he not sent down from his university for being an atheist?

But I'd agree that any poem by Shelley might make you try to be a better person.

[Virgil]

Any poem by Shelley should make u feel closer to the jesus.

Such as? Sorry, but either you're not understanding Shelley or you're not understanding Jesus.

[ktr]

i was kidding, at least the poster after me got it.

[Bastable]

CS Lewis tends to be a relatively well regarded christian writer. My personal favourite of his books are The Screwtape Letters.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Heh, it’s always funny to me when people say that they want to read books about Christianity, “but, please, not the Bible”. Like some others here have said, the Bible really is the first stop. So Google Bob Grahmann, he’s got some nice tips on where to start in the Bible and why. Get an introductory booklet about the book you’ll be reading next. I personally wouldn’t recommend a Bible commentary because it’s really just someone else’s opinion and interpretation, so use with caution if you decide to get one. The Bible doesn’t have to be such a massive undertaking if you approach it right.

You can also go to your nearest Christian book store and ask what they would recommend. BienvenuJDC is right about sticking to non-denominational material “as to not be swayed by denominational doctrines.” It’s better not to get bogged down in rules and practices people have thought up.

Otherwise, I haven’t read it myself (I will get to it), but I’ve heard Watchman Nee’s book ‘The Spiritual Man’ comes highly recommended by pastors and preachers across many denominations, so maybe you should look into that. I also agree with the C.S. Lewis recommendations.

Good luck! I think it’s great that you want to do this! :thumbs_up

[mal4mac]

What makes you think you need to force yourself to believe in the Christian God? Can you really force yourself to believe in something for which there is no good evidence?

Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and see why you don't need to believe in the grand old tooth fairy in the sky.

The Bible may be the most important book for Christians, but not for anyone else. The RSC Complete Shakespeare is a *much* better read, as are all the other canonical works of Western Literature that I have read, or (in the Bible's case!) attempted.

[kiki1982]

While one cannot really force oneself to become Christian, the fact that the poster wonders about it and has decided he is interested means that he is really interested. Regardless of the fact that 'it is true' or not.

The answer to the question 'is there a God or not' is simply insolvable, because the ones that believe there is not have their convincing arguments, because they already believe there is not. The ones that believe there is, have their convincing arguments why there is. And both arguments can be explained in the other sense.

To the poster:

Maybe it is better to go and talk to someone about it. Reading is very good, but talking to an enthusiastic person might do very well.

Decide first what you want to believe in. Do you agree that the world was created in exactly 6 days or not? If you are of the scientific type and put forward the answer as 'no', then certainly do not go to a rampant fundamental enthusiastic Christian, because they do believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days after which God took one day of rest (Sunday). Do you believe in dinosaurs? Yes? Then certainly move into a liberal community, not one that believes in Creationism, but one that takes Darwin to heart.

Believing in Jesus as the Son of God is ok, but there are several versions of that, more conservative and more liberal. Choose the one you feel at home with. Otherwise you will become frustrated at the liberality of it all or at the total nonsense of it all.

There is of course still the idea of going to talk to someone who does not believe. Not necessarily someone who is 'anti-'anything-Christian, but someone who does not need to believe, but still may believe in an afterlife for example, or maybe someone who combines Buddhist philosophy with Christianity. All faiths address God, but not all address the Messiah (Jesus). Are you looking for God or are you looking for the Messiah in particular?

Maybe a good idea is looking for religious forums on the net.

Good luck. :)

[TurquoiseSunset]

What makes you think you need to force yourself to believe in the Christian God? Can you really force yourself to believe in something for which there is no good evidence?

Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and see why you don't need to believe in the grand old tooth fairy in the sky.

The Bible may be the most important book for Christians, but not for anyone else. The RSC Complete Shakespeare is a *much* better read, as are all the other canonical works of Western Literature that I have read, or (in the Bible's case!) attempted.

Dude, he asked for Christian books so we recommended some. The Bible will be at the top of Christian books for obvious reasons, and especially because he is considering to convert. So Shakespeare won't do the trick.

@kiki1982 - I'm Christian and I believe the story of creation is a symbolic one, so I don't stick to the the whole '6 days' thing either (I rather believe in 6 eras if you will, so dinosaurs and evolution can fit into that...What's wrong with God-driven evolution?). Many Christians will disagree with me, but my point is, in Christianity there are LOADS of different views and opinions. Christianity isn't black or white. All the different denominations and in-fighting between them makes that quite clear.

[kiki1982]

@kiki1982 - I'm Christian and I believe the story of creation is a symbolic one, so I don't stick to the the whole '6 days' thing either (I rather believe in 6 eras if you will, so dinosaurs and evolution can fit into that...What's wrong with God-driven evolution?). Many Christians will disagree with me, but my point is, in Christianity there are LOADS of different views and opinions. Christianity isn't black or white. All the different denominations and in-fighting between them makes that quite clear.

My point as well. I am a European continental Catholic who thinks Darwin the only right answer until now and the 6 days as a symbolic mythological period like there are in any mythology.

I think my RE teacher in the 5th year of secondary school branded the free will in me which left the world to man, or in my opinion now, to itself to accomplish its evolution. He interfered in a few instances like the big flood and the gospel and that's it.

But I undertand that there are LOADS of other opinions and we should not quarrel over them.

I was just telling the poster to get into the right crowd. I could not dwell in the same community with people who believe the world was created in 6 days. At least not every week. It's just a different way of believing.

I think then one becomes very lonely and loses self-confidence. Compare it to reading and wanting to talk about just that (like we do on this forum) with someone who is not interested or only reads modern trash. It just does not work. Talking about the deeper thngs of faith with one who is convinced of something else will be very hard.

That is not to say of course that we do not have to respect one another's ;) We will know when we have finally died, but then we cannot tell the rest ;)

I hope I did not express myself too undiplomaticly? I sometimes have that problem according to my hubby.But no harm intended.

[TurquoiseSunset]

My point as well. I am a European continental Catholic who thinks Darwin the only right answer until now and the 6 days as a symbolic mythological period like there are in any mythology.

I think my RE teacher in the 5th year of secondary school branded the free will in me which left the world to man, or in my opinion now, to itself to accomplish its evolution. He interfered in a few instances like the big flood and the gospel and that's it.

But I undertand that there are LOADS of other opinions and we should not quarrel over them.

I was just telling the poster to get into the right crowd. I could not dwell in the same community with people who believe the world was created in 6 days. At least not every week. It's just a different way of believing.

I think then one becomes very lonely and loses self-confidence. Compare it to reading and wanting to talk about just that (like we do on this forum) with someone who is not interested or only reads modern trash. It just does not work. Talking about the deeper thngs of faith with one who is convinced of something else will be very hard.

That is not to say of course that we do not have to respect one another's ;) We will know when we have finally died, but then we cannot tell the rest ;)

I hope I did not express myself too undiplomaticly? I sometimes have that problem according to my hubby.But no harm intended.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to seem like I was attacking you. Maybe I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. It seems like we have more or less the same idea. :thumbsup:

[Katy North]

I am an atheist, but if I were to ever decide that I MUST convert myself to Christianity, I would read the following:

The Collected works of C.S. Lewis
Jonathon Livingston Seagull
Any book by Charles Dickens

If I were to change my mind after that and decide to become an atheist again I'd read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and watch "Religulous" by Bill Mahr.

Just sayin'! :banana:

[L.M. The Third]

Decide first what you want to believe in. Do you agree that the world was created in exactly 6 days or not? If you are of the scientific type and put forward the answer as 'no', then certainly do not go to a rampant fundamental enthusiastic Christian, because they do believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days after which God took one day of rest (Sunday). Do you believe in dinosaurs? Yes? Then certainly move into a liberal community, not one that believes in Creationism, but one that takes Darwin to heart.



With all respect, I find this post rather strange. I think it's highly dangerous to decided what you want to believe before looking at the evidence. Of course, one can't ignore the fact that because of our upbringing and other circumstances, we go into many questions like this with preconceived ideas and sometimes looking for what supports our ideas. Probably the main question in reading the Bible is: Is all of this books inspired by God? And if so, Does it have authority to over-ride my opinions, ideas, and human logic? And that's not a question that's safe to answer by what we like, or would feel most comfortable believing, either.

(I don't want to start an argument here) But there are those in the Scientific field who believe the world was created in six days. There are arguments in Science (the real stuff - not suppositions) for and against Darwin.
And, lastly, I was raised in a Conservative Christian community, and we did believe in Dinosaurs.

[BienvenuJDC]

With all respect, I find this post rather strange. I think it's highly dangerous to decided what you want to believe before looking at the evidence. Of course, one can't ignore the fact that because of our upbringing and other circumstances, we go into many questions like this with preconceived ideas and sometimes looking for what supports our ideas. Probably the main question in reading the Bible is: Is all of this books inspired by God? And if so, Does it have authority to over-ride my opinions, ideas, and human logic? And that's not a question that's safe to answer by what we like, or would feel most comfortable believing, either.

(I don't want to start an argument here) But there are those in the Scientific field who believe the world was created in six days. There are arguments in Science (the real stuff - not suppositions) for and against Darwin.
And, lastly, I was raised in a Conservative Christian community, and we did believe in Dinosaurs.

I concur...completely!
and I believe that Noah even took Dinosaurs on the ark with him...(baby ones)

[kiki1982]

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to seem like I was attacking you. Maybe I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. It seems like we have more or less the same idea. :thumbsup:

I didn't see it as attacking. I saw it as needing a little explanation. It seems indeed that we have roughly the same ideas.


With all respect, I find this post rather strange. I think it's highly dangerous to decided what you want to believe before looking at the evidence. Of course, one can't ignore the fact that because of our upbringing and other circumstances, we go into many questions like this with preconceived ideas and sometimes looking for what supports our ideas. Probably the main question in reading the Bible is: Is all of this books inspired by God? And if so, Does it have authority to over-ride my opinions, ideas, and human logic? And that's not a question that's safe to answer by what we like, or would feel most comfortable believing, either.

(I don't want to start an argument here) But there are those in the Scientific field who believe the world was created in six days. There are arguments in Science (the real stuff - not suppositions) for and against Darwin.
And, lastly, I was raised in a Conservative Christian community, and we did believe in Dinosaurs.

I think I might have expressed myself a little shoddy there. What I meant to say was that the poster needs to think first in what he is able to believe. If he will not be able to believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days then it is no use trying. One can change one's opinions, but of certain things one is convinced, right?

No-one would ever be able to convince me of Creationism. I am not trying to start an argument either here about those two, but I would not be able to be convinced. It would be pretty useless for me to go to a community where everyone thinks me strange because I am a 'Darwinist' and some might want to change that. Then I need to look for a community where I can talk about that. Most of them will respect my opinion in the first community, I know, but it remains difficult, if they talk about the world being created in 6 days and me always thinking 'it is nonsense'. Then rather find the community for me.

If I don't want to revere Mary as the mother of Jesus and all the other saints, then I should not become a Catholic, but a protestant because there are no saints.

Christianity, as TurquoiseSunset said, is huge, so find the one for you.

[BienvenuJDC]

No-one would ever be able to convince me of Creationism.

So you are admitting to being completely closed-minded on the subject...in spite of potential evidence presented to you?

[Babbalanja]

So you are admitting to being completely closed-minded on the subject...in spite of potential evidence presented to you?What is projection?

Thank you, Alex, I'll stick with Psychological Defense Mechanisms for $400.

Regards,

Istvan

[L.M. The Third]

No-one would ever be able to convince me of Creationism. I am not trying to start an argument either here about those two, but I would not be able to be convinced.

Christianity, as TurquoiseSunset said, is huge, so find the one for you.

Interesting. For me, no matter how far I may go from the conservative Christianity of my upbringing, someone is going to have to find loads of evidence for evolution (that simply does not exist today) for me to believe it. I'd have to become a desperate Atheist to have the faith for evolution.

But again, the question is: Is Christianity (and the Bible) something we can accept and reject as it fits our upbringing and reason, Or is it an ultimate point of truth?

And it's something I have to ask myself everyday, because it effects my day by day decisions.

[keilj]

Interesting. For me, no matter how far I may go from the conservative Christianity of my upbringing, someone is going to have to find loads of evidence for evolution (that simply does not exist today) for me to believe it. I'd have to become a desperate Atheist to have the faith for evolution.

But again, the question is: Is Christianity (and the Bible) something we can accept and reject as it fits our upbringing and reason, Or is it an ultimate point of truth?

And it's something I have to ask myself everyday, because it effects my day by day decisions.

to me - believing that life stared with some "Big Bang" and that we crawled out of the muck as lizards, takes more blind faith and belief in the absolutely absurd than believing in God ever could

[Babbalanja]

Is Christianity (and the Bible) something we can accept and reject as it fits our upbringing and reason, Or is it an ultimate point of truth?I'm sure there are some verses of the Bible that you wouldn't accept literally, or would interpret as being filtered through the moral perspective of the people who wrote it. In that case, you're admitting the Bible itself is not an "ultimate point of truth," because you have to make decisions on how to accept it.


to me - believing that life stared with some "Big Bang" and that we crawled out of the muck as lizards, takes more blind faith and belief in the absolutely absurd than believing in God ever couldBut I thought blind faith was a virtue. Isn't that what the Binding of Isaac was all about? So are you saying that evolution by natural selection is a more noble belief than the Resurrection?

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm sure there are some verses of the Bible that you wouldn't accept literally,

As with all literary works, some things are not MEANT to be taken literally.



But I thought blind faith was a virtue.

This is error on your part.

[kiki1982]

@Bienvenu

I could ask you the same question why you do not accept Darwin in view of the overwhelmig proof. .

Let's say we are both convinced of our view and we respect each other for it, but we would never think about converting now to the other's view, right.

We are not going to discuss evolution now, because, at this point in time, it is impossible to prove either the one or the other. We will have to wait still a long time to prove the one way or the other.

I will not be convinced unless there is clear proof the other way in my lifetime, and that will not be possible. Man has not found everything there is to find, he does not even know how much there is to find, so it is impossible to judge if he 'knows'. Therefore he will never be able to prove that Darwin is not true, nor will he be able to prove really that it is. One can only attempt to be convinced of the one or the other, at best.

And, yes, in this one instance, I am closed-minded to the other. Conviction is also a virtue.

[BienvenuJDC]

@Bienvenu

I could ask you the same question.

Let's say we are both convinced of our view and we respect each other for it, but we would never think about converting now to the other's view, right.

We are not going to discuss evolution now, because, at this point in time, it is impossible to prove either the one or the other. We will have to wait still a long time to prove the one way or the other.

I will not be convinced unless there is clear proof the other way in my lifetime, and that will not be possible. Man has not found everything there is to find, he does not even know how much there is to find, so it is impossible to judge if he 'knows'. Therefore he will never be able to prove that Darwin is not true, nor will he be able to prove really that it is. One can only attempt to be convinced of the one or the other, at best.

And, yes, in this one instance, I am closed-minded to the other. Conviction is also a virtue.

I've given that one a lot of thought. Although I will honestly say that I am as equally convicted as you are, I would at least consider any evidence (skeptically though). So we are probably equally set in our ways...and equally as closed minded. But the question (for both of us) is...have we LOOKED for 'clear proof' of the other position?

We will both have to answer that question for ourselves.

[keilj]

But I thought blind faith was a virtue. Isn't that what the Binding of Isaac was all about? So are you saying that evolution by natural selection is a more noble belief than the Resurrection?

Regards,

Istvan

i was speaking specifically about the common argument by skeptics of Christianity, who on the one hand argue that believing in an invisible man in the sky is laughable, yet they believe in big bangs and monkeys as our ancestors - which seems to require some "suspension of disbelief" as well. If you're trying to take what I said and turn it into some tangential argument/conversation (an argument about virtue, faith, so on) - I don't get into that - it is essentially a distraction tactic


But the question (for both of us) is...have we LOOKED for 'clear proof' of the other position?



I'm sincerely not trying to fuel the fire - but if you are looking for proof about God, forget it - that is the whole point of faith

[Babbalanja]

As with all literary works, some things are not MEANT to be taken literally. Okay. But then aren't you in rather a double-bind when using the Bible as the source for your beliefs? I recall you went on record as saying that you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old and was created as described in the Bible. What if the Bible's description of the creation was metaphorical?

What about John 3:16? Is that meant to be taken literally?


And, yes, in this one instance, I am closed-minded to the other. Why is that? In my opinion, the theory that best explains all the evidence is the one I go with. Creationism is simply lacking in that respect.

Regards,

Istvan

[ktr]

yet they believe in big bangs and monkeys as our ancestors - which seems to require some "suspension of disbelief" as well.

pretty funny statement - {edit} nobody, no evolutionist, no darwinist, nobody claimed ever that humans came from monkeys, the only people who claim that are people who don't understand evolution at all, and interject that argument onto the other side, as if anyone took that position. the idea is that WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR DATING BACK A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS.

{edit}

[keilj]

pretty funny statement - {edit} nobody, no evolutionist, no darwinist, nobody claimed ever that humans came from monkeys, the only people who claim that are people who don't understand evolution at all, and interject that argument onto the other side, as if anyone took that position. the idea is that WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR DATING BACK A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS.

{edit}

once again - which seems to be the only tactic on discussion boards - you've taken one small piece of what I've said, and tried to turn the entire discussion down that avenue - instead of trying to intelligently refute my original argument

{edit}

[mal4mac]

... But there are those in the Scientific field who believe the world was created in six days.

Name one that hasn't been blown out of the water by Dawkins. (You have read his book I hope?)

[Babbalanja]

Name one that hasn't been blown out of the water by copious evidence from geology, astronomy, paleontology, molecular biology, and physics.That's better.

Regards,

Istvan

[kiki1982]

I'm sincerely not trying to fuel the fire - but if you are looking for proof about God, forget it - that is the whole point of faith

Our argument was about Creationism v Darwinism.

Yours is about God v no God.

For Creationism there is an argument, for Darwinism too. It is, as I said, [I[for now[/I] unsolvable, that mystery.

However, I do agree on the point of faith: there is no proof of a God or no.

[ktr]

For Creationism there is an argument, for Darwinism too. It is, as I said, [I[for now[/I] unsolvable, that mystery.

No.

there is no argument for creationism, no scientific one.

there is no mystery behind evolution.

faaaaaaaak

[keilj]

No.

there is no argument for creationism, no scientific one.

there is no mystery behind evolution.

faaaaaaaak

you've essentially revealed your incredible bias - and also reveled your own "faith" mentality. for you the only argument is a scientific one. have you never observed anything in your life that is not explainable by science?? I mean what are you even doing in a literature forum - just trolling? I mean literature in itself examines themes and motifs that go far beyond science - into the human psyche, soul, and heart

if your only God is science, why would you even read a lit book??

[ktr]

you've essentially revealed your incredible bias - and also reveled your own "faith" mentality. for you the only argument is a scientific one. have you never observed anything in your life that is not explainable by science?? I mean what are you even doing in a literature forum - just trolling? I mean literature in itself examines themes and motifs that go far beyond science - into the human psyche, soul, and heart

if your only God is science, why would you even read a lit book??

Bias? evolution happened, evolution is happening. the big bang happened, if you understood science, and math, and history, and knew how to look at observable evidence - you would understand this.

as to your obsession over bringing god and faith into this - i have no opinion what so ever. i dont believe or disbelieve in god or---- or men for that matter.

[kiki1982]

No.

there is no argument for creationism, no scientific one.

there is no mystery behind evolution.

faaaaaaaak

Ah, you see that is where you are wrong, because we/they haven't found 'the missing link' yet.

They have been able to see certain things that seem to back up evolution. Based on the theory they have been able to put together a mathematical equation that seems to be able predict certain things.

Yet, there is no definite material proof (yet, I find). Let's say, we cannot put a lot of things together and put together all of the life forms, from the first, us the humans. We have only proof of certain life forms developping and not total, I don't think.

And that, ironically, is the argument for Creationsim: the fact that there is no material proof to prove the opposite irrevocably.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is more likely that Darwin had it (partly now) right. But, on the other hand, a lot remains to be proven.

I think the last time I heard they were experimenting, in Switzerland I believe, to try to see how The Big Bang actually happened. Scientist regard it as the only possibility (probably) for creating such a great big universe. But, as they cannot take sample stones from planets/stars out of other star clusters than our star system around the sun, they cannot really prove that this particul kind of stone, to be found on Mars f.i., is the same as the one found on star X two solar systems away. The few chances they get are stray meteors or stuff falling on the Earth, but then they should be really lucky to find one that matches. At this point, they are hoping that the theory is right, and they are trying to see whether they can povoke a little bang so they can say: 'you see it is possible, and the universe could have stared like this.' Once they have proven that, then still remains the question 'why?' and 'how?'. Because what inthe universe provoked that bang?

Or was it God after all? ;)

[Kevets]

Speaking of the Bible as literature (because, you know, this is a literature forum)...

I am halfway through my reading of the New Testament. The Gospels are horribly repetitious. Only the Gospel According to John takes a new approach, being much more mystical than the other three. The first three gospels take a newspaper, historical approach.

How anybody could be a Bible literalist is beyond my ability to comprehend. And then, as pointed out a few posts ago, you're left wondering which is metaphor and allegory and which is The Truth.

I was raised Catholic and at the time was taught (by the Church) that Adam and Eve and the Fall really did happen. Now, evidently, the Pope accepts evolution. So by logical extension, the Pope must be saying that Genesis is myth. So then, what about the resurrection?

Anyway, to the original poster (this post is quite suspicious in its trolling, but anyway) - I am reading, along with reading the New Testament, "The Zen Teachings of Christ". This book interprets Christ's message as if he were a Buddha. It makes more sense than the literal reading of the Bible. But therein lies my problem. Once you agree that "the Word of God" (love all those capital letters) is open for interpretation, then which interpretation are you going with? Because you can make The Word say anything you want it to.

[BienvenuJDC]

This thread has gotten off track....it is not to prove or disprove Christianity...

It IS to learn more about it for those who wish to believe in it...

[Kevets]

I didn't even say that I believe in either of them, I just recognize the fact that both sides are engaging in some "wishful" thinking, or faith
Well, you might want to do some reading on what science is. Evolution is a Theory (has been elevated to that capital letter status). It can be tested and "falsified". A scientist would dearly love to falsify evolutionary theory - talk about being famous!

Faith is the opposite. It is not testable or verifiable. You can test and demonstrate, as people have for centuries, that prayers are not answered. But if the person you're arguing with comes back with God works in mysterious ways, or sometimes the answer is no, or whatever, well there's no further point in continued discourse.

[Babbalanja]

But therein lies my problem. Once you agree that "the Word of God" (love all those capital letters) is open for interpretation, then which interpretation are you going with? Because you can make The Word say anything you want it to.I talked about that before, the double-bind of using the Bible as a source for wisdom. But I never got an answer.

Regards,

Istvan

[L.M. The Third]

what book do you recommend me to introduce myself to christianity. Maybe I'm needing God and spirituality in my life! Maybe I need God! What book do you recommend that might convert me to christianity? (except the bible)

Back to the original post, which perhaps it's my fault we got off of so much... My suggestion is "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan.
To begin with the book is one of the most translated works written in English. It has never been out of print. Some have considered it a fore-runner of the English novel. It's highly entertaining. It has been loved and respected by members of many denominations. It reveals a sincere Christian author, who possessed imagination and a sense of humor.
And, most importantly, it is the story of every Christian, who seeks something better, and yet finding it still errs, and learns finally to keep his eyes on the light. I would call it the best introduction to Christianity you can read.

[keilj]

This thread has gotten off track....it is not to prove or disprove Christianity...

It IS to learn more about it for those who wish to believe in it...

which is why evolutionist tools come into the room and make distracting comments - trolls who probably never read the Bible with any thoroughness or earnestness - yet they give themselves aneurisms trying to refute it

[kiki1982]

I am halfway through my reading of the New Testament. The Gospels are horribly repetitious. Only the Gospel According to John takes a new approach, being much more mystical than the other three. The first three gospels take a newspaper, historical approach.

I was raised Catholic and at the time was taught (by the Church) that Adam and Eve and the Fall really did happen. Now, evidently, the Pope accepts evolution. So by logical extension, the Pope must be saying that Genesis is myth. So then, what about the resurrection?

To answer the first remark:

The first gospels were written earlier. John was the last and he based his writings mainly on himself/his own faith. Mark was the first. He wrote his gospel, I believe, from accounts of one man in particular who had known Jesus. I seem to think that was Paul, but please correct me on it if that is wrong. The two others, Mathew and Luke, copied largely from Mark (as people did then) and put a little more in it. Possibly by witness accounts or something. John's gospel was written much later (100 to 300 years I seem to remember. No time to look on Wikipedia) and I don't think he was even alive in the times Jesus lived. So, if he was going on witnesses, the memory of this man, The Son of God, was already coloured by faith, fantasy, as people often exaggerated. Essentially, Mark and his two copiists, wrote down the life of Jesus. John wrote down the mystical figure, figure that inspireed him in his faith, and wold inspire others. He also starts quite oddly with the fact that 'the light was God [and that] darkness understandeth it not' (is that right?). He, from the start makes it clear that there is no choice: Jesus was the Son of God. Full stop. The others are still trying to prove it, against all odds.

I was also raised a Catholic, went to a Catholic school through the whole of my education, but I was never taught that the Fall of Man did happen, nor that man was created by God. In the religious education class, we were taught certain kinds of things, but we were rather educated in being able to read the gospel and understand it (who are the pharizees in Jewish law, the Sanhedrin, why did Pointius Pilate leave the judgment of Jesus up to the Jewish people? How did the Jews live?). We were taught evolution in the biology class and during the last years we got rather philosophy in our RE class instead of anything else. In primary school though, it was a little simplistic, but you can't really teach the concept of the free will to a child of 8. They did teach us the creation story, but they were not adamant that it really happened. I remember I was puzzled once because I was interested in 'the first man' (I had a book with all types of human skulls and the evolution of man in it; homo erectus, homo sapiens etc). I asked my mother how the story of creation could be true, because that my books also on prehistoric eras and animals and stuff, did not speak of 6 days. She told me to look at it in a symbolial manner. Point is not the symbolical manner, but my is that my RE class must have been pretty week if I could question that in favour of a book on my shelf (nonetheless about a topic that interested me very much). At ten years old.

My education all happened in the 90s, up to 2000. I don't know how old you are, but I think, the time that the Fall of Man was still really true, was in Belgian schools around the 50s?

The cousin of my grandmother gets puzzled about it, but she is 87.

[OrphanPip]

Ah, you see that is where you are wrong, because we/they haven't found 'the missing link' yet.

They have been able to see certain things that seem to back up evolution. Based on the theory they have been able to put together a mathematical equation that seems to be able predict certain things.


There is no missing link. This myth derives from a distinct misunderstanding of biology. There is a near infinite number of transitional species between the modern human and a proto-human like homo erectus. Fossilization events are so rare that we have only a hand full of early homo fossils, and every time a new fossil fills a hole in the gap, the anti-evolutionist make another claim for yet another missing link. It doesn't seem to matter that we can identify common ancestors between humans and neanderthals, proto-humans and chimps, chimp-humans and gorillas, chimps-humans-gorillas and Asian apes, apes and old-world monkeys, old-world monkeys and new world monkey, etc.

[kiki1982]

Back to the original post, which perhaps it's my fault we got off of so much... My suggestion is "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan.
To begin with the book is one of the most translated works written in English. It has never been out of print. Some have considered it a fore-runner of the English novel. It's highly entertaining. It has been loved and respected by members of many denominations. It reveals a sincere Christian author, who possessed imagination and a sense of humor.
And, most importantly, it is the story of every Christian, who seeks something better, and yet finding it still errs, and learns finally to keep his eyes on the light. I would call it the best introduction to Christianity you can read.

No, not your fault. We were not going to discuss it. We did not fall into the trap.

But that is one HELL of a suggestion (if you don't mind me being a little sarcastic ;)). That is the best I have heard yet.

I didn't think about it. I wonder why. It is one I have been interested in, but haven't got round to yet. It looks very sincere and very much to the point.

Maybe, whoever wants to discuss the topic Creationism-Evolution further should set up a thread on the Serious Discussion forum, which is there for a reason. That discussion has probably been conducted already;

[OrphanPip]

I was just correcting an error. The "missing link" doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of sensationalist journalist and the scientifically uneducated.

Moreover, it isn't a matter of creationism versus evolution, it is simply a matter of people at least understanding the mere basics of evolutionary science. So many people feel entitled to make comments about the validity of evolution without knowing anything more than a brief overview of the dumbed down version in high school.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

The OP of the thread:
what book do you recommend me to introduce myself to christianity. Maybe I'm needing God and spirituality in my life! Maybe I need God! What book do you recommend that might convert me to christianity? (except the bible)The aim is not to discuss evolution vs creation, whether God exists or whether the OP should read these books.

Off-topic posts have been and will be deleted without any further notice.

[Kevets]

{edit}

So to the original poster, if the interest in study is genuine, I would recommend the works of Joseph Campbell (e.g. The Hero With a Thousand Faces). His study of world mythologies (and he includes Christianity) is fascinating stuff. The original post was a little weird - what to read in order to believe Christianity. You might better do a world survey and see what makes the most sense to you. Because frankly that's where the Catholics lost me - even as a boy 8 years old, I was unable to make the "leap of faith" required. And as an adult, the more I've read the more impossible such a leap seems to me.

[mal4mac]

... someone is going to have to find loads of evidence for evolution (that simply does not exist today) for me to believe it. I'd have to become a desperate Atheist to have the faith for evolution.


There is loads of evidence! Start with Dawkins and read around. Note that Dawkins does not have blind, absolute faith in evolution, he simply thinks it is by far the best theory going. He's also not desperate...


What book do you recommend that might convert me to christianity?

Throughout my life I've asked myself, and my Google search engine, this question. The most recent, and best, book of this nature I tried was "The Case for God: What Religion Really Means" by Karen Armstrong. But, like all the others, it failed to convert me. Interesting read though. She's a very clear writer, with lots of interesting things to say about theology.

If you have read, closely, works by Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins or Bryan Magee on this issue I don't see how you could be converted! By reading these writers, you may become happier through attaining the answer, "there is probably no book that can convert me Christianity, and I don't mind, because Christianity is not something I want." And then you can get on with worrying about more interesting things...