Christian Delusion:  Why Faith Fails
359712
This tome was everything I hoped it would be, well researched and to the point.  I would recommend this book to those who have doubts about organized religion.
420621
This book is a comprehensive defense of the concept of faith taught by the Word of Faith movement and how it complements rather than compromises the sovereignty of God.  Refutations are made against the biased arguments of popular evangelical heresy hunters. Some of the doctrines analyzed are:

Sovereignty - Is everything ultimately caused (and willed) by God or can man's destiny be different from God's will? Does God cause all the evils we see, such as sickness, poverty, persecution, temptation, and natural disasters?

Healing - What is the root of sickness?  Does God pick and choose who to heal arbitrarily? Is healing part of the atonement? Why do we still die if we are "healed"? Does faith play a role? Whose faith? Did the healing ministry cease? Was Paul's thorn a physical infirmity?

Suffering - Why did the apostles suffer if we were meant to live in victory in all areas of life? Is suffering God's will for believers? What kind of suffering?

Prayer - Does God really answer the prayers of an obedient, Spirit-filled, believing Christian with a "NO"? Does prayer require belief in the outcome, or just general trust in God for an answer? Should we just always pray, "If it be your will"?

Spoken Faith - Is there power in the tongue?  Is it wrong to verbally speak the Word over and rebuke our circumstances, sicknesses, and demonic powers?  Can we know God's will?  Can we believe we receive exactly what we pray for?

Prosperity - What is prosperity? Is it something we can believe God for?

Old Testament Promises - Did all Old Testament promises of healing, protection, deliverance, and abundance vanish at the onset of the New Testament?  Have they converted into spiritual blessings only?

I guarantee this book will educate you on the Biblical foundation for a balanced Word of Faith message.  It is not complicated reading, yet has enough exegesis and doctrinal analysis to refute the arguments posed by skeptics from the scholarly world.
2907243
In this book, Alvin Plantinga attempts to safegaurd theism from the problem of evil by explaining why he believes God and evil are compatible, although his attempts fail.  While claiming that God is not responsible for evil, Plantinga presents an analogy where two mountain climbers are stranded, and a rescuer can save only one climber (pg 20).  Plantinga's analogy fails to apply to an omnipotent being, however, for the rescuer, a non-omnipotent being, is limited by external forces.  When considering this flaw, Plantinga states, "Perhaps so, but this is not the point" (pg 21).  What is the point then?  To present a flawed analogy, recognize the flaw yourself, and then divert the reader's attention elsewhere without addressing the core objection?
Reconciling freedom and evil, Plantinga asserts that moral good requires the ability to choose between good and evil (pg 30).  Plantinga considers compatibalism but insists that it does not offer true freedom (pg 31).  Plantinga's account fails to consider the role of moral knowledge in compatibalism.  Plantinga, and other admirers of him, tend to define freedom exclusively in terms of action, although freedom also extends to choice.  Compatibalism asserts that God could have created men where they always choose to do good freely, perhaps by instilling men with a stronger understanding of morals and the consequences of evil action.  The example of Adam eating the forbidden apple illustrates this point.  Genesis states that Adam was deceived by Satan into believing that the apple would make him like God.  At that moment, God could have appeared before Adam and told him that if he eats of the apple, he in fact will not become like him but will suffer and have to leave paradise, although he is free to do as he pleases.  Would this extention of moral knowledge have violated Adam's freedom? Absolutely not, for Adam merely would have gained knowledge to act upon.  Adam probably would have rejected the apple freely, had God allowed him to know its true consequences and that Satan was deceiving him.  Some persons might say that this extension of knowledge is coercive and manipulates Adam's choice by promising punishment.  The coersion objection, however, contradicts most religious traditions; in Christianity, God places conditions upon man's free actions by asserting that if men freely choose to sin, then they shall suffer eternal damnation.  That's like a waiter informing a customer that the evening's special leads to abdominal cramps and then telling him that he's free to order the special.
The greatest weakness of Plantinga's book is in stating that demons with free will cause natural evil (pg 58).  Explaining natural evil is detrimental to theism, for such explanations raise harmful questions.  Why would a just God allow demons to harm humans who are not responsible for the demons' decisions and actions?  Some theists assert that at times, God intervenes and prevents natural evil (aka performs miralces), although this claim also is detrimental.  Why would God intervene to save some persons from natural evil but not other persons?  If God has the ability to intervene and prevent natural evil, then isn't he responsible for not doing so?  Some theists claim that natural evil needs no explanation, which is true in some cases but not in others.  Some natural evil warrants explanation, for God could have created humans with a stronger immune system or without vestigal organs that cause infections and death.  It appears that neither Plantinga nor his omniscient God thought of these possible preventions of natural evil that warrant explanation.
4860026
Multiple studies indicate that Christian young adults are turning their backs on The Faith in droves, as many as 80%, when they leave home and entire the hallowed halls of the university. One study reveals that many of these young people begin departing, at least mentally, in the 3rd grade. Too often that is because they begin to wrestle with the disconnect between little Sunday School stories and the impressive world of Science presented to them five days a week. Tragically, the church has abdicated its role in the scientific endeavor, and too many college professors are more than willing to capitalize on this void...and the church is losing it's finest minds.

Hebrews 11:6 says in part, "...he who comes to God must first believe that He is..." Romans 1:20 says that God can be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Using his experience as a Cold Case detective, Jim Wallace bridges the two worlds between the church and science, and presents a solid case for the existence of God. This is the bedrock that is missing in the lives of these young people, missing because the church too often fails, not only in answering the questions of the young people, but also in not entertaining the questions. This is a solid step to overcoming that weakness!
980959
Individuals, especially Christians, are going to be challenged when reading The Last Prophecy: The Antichrist and the Dramatic Fall of a Publishing Empire by A. Escalona.

In the introduction, the author addresses this very issue by reminding readers that they have the opportunity to do an evaluation of this uncensored Christian doctrine in private, either rejecting or accepting their predictions.  I say "their" because the author uses "we" in recognition of what he sincerely believes to be God's role in his prophetic claims. He uses the pronoun "I" in describing personal experiences.

The role of a reviewer is not to express his or her personal beliefs in regard to any subject, but to evaluate the book according to the author's writing skills, how he or she presents the material, and whether the information will hold the interest of readers from the first page to the last. I can honestly state that the author displays writing talent, that the material is presented in an orderly and understandable way, and that, regardless of what readers choose to reject or accept, they will want to read it to completion.  After all, who wouldn't want to know who Escalona identifies as the antichrist?

At the end of this book, readers learn that the author has founded "The New Church of the Manifold Wisdom" after his supernatural confirmation that he has been ordained as a priest.  This is in keeping with his teachings throughout the book in which he explains to readers that every event or condition must be analyzed from two different perspectives--the divine and the human. Also, something that interested me was his statement that "God is Time."  Readers will be intrigued as to how he reaches this conclusion, including references made to certain scriptures. The Manifold Wisdom of God, according to Escalona, brings clarity to apparent contradictions in the Bible that continue to puzzle Christians.

As readers continue reading, they will find that the author does not hesitate to address many questions that have been asked by believers of all religions as well as atheists.  Some are:  Does God's determination or human freewill control our actions?  What is the difference between spiritual deliverance and praying?  Who is the source of sin and temptation?  If God loved his people, why doesn't He give us longer lives and prosperity?  Why does God allow innocent babies to be born with terminal diseases such as HIV, or to be sexually abused?  Why do bad things happen to good people?  He constantly refers to scripture in providing answers to these and other questions.

Although I am not personally convinced of the author's  conclusions in regard to the antichrist and his interpretation of  the number 666,  readers will only know the truth if or when they see the fall of a major publishing company take place.  Irrespective of my personal feelings in regard to this, I believe this is a thought-provoking book that many readers will find fascinating. We all learn from debating, so read this book and have your own private debate with Escalona.
3318891
Richard Dawkins, a leading biologist and Professor of Science Communication, is one of atheism's leading preachers in the modern world and has converted many to his faith.

Dawkins is an eloquent and talented writer and uses every weapon in his arsenal to try and show religion is a delusion, in fact, a delusion caused by viruses which infect the human mind.  We need to 'inoculate' ourself against this pernicious virus and free ourselves from our superstitious bonds, to see reality as it truely is (which is the world as revealed by science).

Alister McGrath is in many ways Dawkin's opposite, but is also very similar.  He also trained as a Biologist at Cambridge (in the field of molecular biology) and in his earlier years was a fervent atheist and Marxist.  He can readily appreciate and understand where Dawkins is coming from, and also graps the heart of the science Dawkins is talking about.  (If only more evangelical Christians would be like this).

McGrath however converted to Anglican Christianity and is also an evangelical, probably the leading evangelical thinker in the UK.  In this work and others, he excellently demonstrates how bankrupt many of Dawkin's arguments are, as are their pretensions to demonstrate religion to be false.  However, he also is always willing to give Dawkins credit where it is due (and given his multiple talents it is due often).

McGrath's best insight is that is still rational to believe in God while also being a scientist, or an admirer of the universe as revealed by science.  While evolution may not be conducive to some of the past theistic understandings of God, this does not mean we have to become an atheist overnight.

This book is worth reading for any Christian concerned to defend his or her faith against scientific skepticism or atheism.
1382135
Some of the Christian mythology is notably flawed, which takes away from the author's credibility in all other aspects of the book.  Further to the author's credibility, Mr. Williams fails to cite references so that the reader can validate both the theological and scientific information presented.  The author does raise valid points, but more in the arena of why our children "should" be atheists, not why our children will be atheists.
3280715
A.W.Pink gives an historical observation that highlights the importance of this Biblical doctrine:p. 10 "under God,the preaching of this grand truth brought about the greatest revival which the cause of Christ has enjoyed since the days of the apostles".

In chapter seven the author refutes an error that has been taught by some:that being that the elect have been eternally justified by God. In the mind of God this is true-for once God has purposed to do something,it is certain that it will come to pass(for none can stay His hand).However until someone actually believes,what state are they in? According to John3:18 'He that believeth not is condemned';while any are in a state of unbelief they are under condemnation. In addition to that we all enter this world in the same condition(as fallen sons of Adam)and are 'by nature children of wrath' Ephesians 2:3b.

In the chapter 'Its Evidence' Pink distinguishes between what the Apostle Paul was treating concerning the doctrine of justification(that no sinner can be reconciled to God,have their sins forgiven,have a righteousness credited to them which God will accept and be restored to fellowship with Almighty God except through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ),Whereas the Apostle James is looking at the evidence in the life of one who says that they are trusting in the Lord Jesus. James is seeking to expose a false or empty profession of faith. Mr. Pink goes on to point out,later in this chapter,that all empty professors of faith are  not  aware of their hypocrisy(they may be self deceived).Though there are many who are content with an intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel but their hearts are not wholly submitted to the God of the Word: p. 67" there is no real subjection to God,no holiness of walk,no fruit to Christ's glory." This is the faith of the demons that James alludes to in his epistle.

At times Pink packs as much theological truth in two or three sentences as any writer that I've read. Here is an example of that in this summary statement on Justification(looking at the doctrine from different angles):"Christians were decretively justified from all eternity,efficaciously so when Christ rose from the dead;actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance;manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience...".

In 'The Doctrine Of Justification' A.W.Pink gives ,what any familiar with his writings comes to expect,a Biblically accurate,illuminating,concise and insightful rendering of one off the major teachings of the Christian Faith.
3788469
Books by George Barna, George Gallup Jr., et al., have reported on the millions of American Christian adults who have walked away from the Christian faith.  But very few books in recent years have been addressed directly to these individuals who have experientially lost their faith.  The most recent, Walking Away from Faith by Ruth Tucker (InterVarsity, 2002), offers an insightful analysis of their experiences, enriched with many anecdotal stories (including the author's own struggles).  But in the end Tucker doesn't offer readers hope.  This is an important book, but I can't recommend it.
3907182
This book caught my eye because of the numerous unresolved questions I had regarding the roots of Christianity. Based on my religious studies, it always seemed that the majority of the gospel of Christ - the teachings spoken by Jesus and promulgated by the apostles he commissioned during his life - and Christianity's most fundamental doctrines had a major conflict. When I would research the explanations of Christian theologians for these glaring contradictions, their responses would be largely unsatisfying and at times even mind-numbing.

 Of course, its not like Jesus followers would risk their lives for a false concocted message, right? So, what if the doctrines of Christianity weren't actually what they taught and preached? What if it isn't a matter of trying to reconcile the logical fallacies of concepts like original sin and the incarnation, but if its a question of the origin of the doctrines themselves?

 It is the latter paradigm for which Syed M.S. Nasser delivers an excellent elucidation in Paul and the Pharisee Conspiracy Against Jesus. The difference between this book and other works is that he doesnt just show how Pauline teachings are diametrically opposed to that of Christ, but he also unravels the mystery behind why Paul would commit what would go down as the greatest deception in the history of mankind.

 Nasser examines the many reasons that lead the Pharisees and Paul to attempt to destroy the messianic movement from within after exhausting the futile tactics of murder (Jesus and Stephen) and persecution. He explains the motives and goals of Paul, who, in his utter hatred of Christ and intoxicated obsession for the dying Rabbinic Judaism, substantiated all the false Pharisaic allegations against the Jesus movement. These included the abrogation of Mosaic Law, the deification of Jesus, and his accursed-crucifixion death. In doing so, he wished to mislead the Jews from their long awaited messiah. Thus, Nasser names Paul as the very Antichrist Jesus warned of: a sheep in wolfs clothing, a sower of weeds among the pious wheat, a false prophet who would astray even the elect.

 However, Paul would fail miserably and meet a humiliating death in accordance with Old Testament prophecy about false prophets. Not only was he abandoned by all the righteous Jews in Asia who saw past his blasphemy, it was the Jesus Jews themselves whose rioting against him lead to his trial. While the power of the Pharisaic class would diminish along with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the messianic movement following the real Jesus would flourish as the Jews converted in mass numbers (and eventually accepted Islam in the 7th century). At the same time, however, Pauls followers would grow and eventually morph into what became the Roman Catholic Church, which would later on spawn the prophesied Antichrist civilization in Western Europe.

 Of course, these aren't simply empty claims or wishful thinking. Nasser uses a plethora of biblical, historical, and even scientific evidence to prove his claims.  Thus, it is a masterpiece touching on a variety of subjects such as theology, history, and comparative religion. As the book unfolds, he continually calls readers to seriously examine their views by focusing on the bigger picture. This for no other reason than the dire existential consequences associated with the destruction of the Antichrist civilization as prophesied numerously in the Bible and Quran. He demonstrates how divine prophecies have clearly been fulfilled time and time again, and thereby forces the reader to critically examine their views on the past, present, and future of mankind.
2912765
Jim Marrs admits at the outset that all information ("data") he has presented is presented for consideration only and that as with any research all data must be considered lest we become prejudiced investigators. Thus, one cannot hold him too accountable for presenting a different viewpoint, even radically different.
I have researched and found numerous parallels between many cultures, examples such as Creation, Flood, etc. narratives which were parallel across cultures separted by great distances. One can only speculate how this occurred. Personally, I beleive the explanation is that narratives were carried worldwide after the dispersal of languages following the Tower of Babel events.
Mr. Marrs has provided one interpretation of the events of the Pre-Flood era. There are others.
He has also provided a contrast between the traditional Christian view of the Life, Death and Divinity of Jesus and the non-traditional view held by many Cathars, Merovingians, Freemasons, Rosicrusians, Priory of Sionists, etc. As Arnold Toynbee said in his famous 1956 Gifford Lecture entitled An Historians View of Religion, "Religions cannot be propagated by force.  There is no such thing as a belief that is not held voluntarily.  All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing . . . . And such is the nature of the understanding, that is cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force . . . . Nobody is born a member of any church . . . . But everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God.  No religion that I believe not to be true, can be either true or profitable to me. To believe this or that, to be true, does not depend upon our will."
Hence, one has to decide for himself whether he or she will believe "this" or "that". That is the essence of belief and faith. This debate has been going on since the debate between St. Paul and the Jerusalem Church and I suspect it will continue.
1241390
Among the books I read late last year was The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark Noll, a historian of American religion at Notre Dame. Its a truly illuminating book about the ways different groups of Christians in the mid-nineteenth century interpreted the Bibles teachings about slavery, along with a whole host of interpretational implications for a range of issues related to public theology.

From the historical record it is clear, Noll writes, that the American Civil War generated a first-order theological crisis over how to interpret the Bible, how to understand the work of God in the world, and how to exercise the authority of theology in a democratic society.

What struck me while reading his account of that painful and pivotal time in our countrys history was the way that on the whole it was not the slaveholders but the abolitionistsamong whose number Id certainly like to think I would have belongedwho tended to be quick to dismiss or minimize the authority of the Bible, rather than doing the difficult work of interpreting its teaching for public life. Noll writes:

"The primary reason that the biblical defense of slavery remained so strong was that many biblical attacks on slavery were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical attacks on slavery were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of self-evident truth. They were also the easiest to refute. More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical attacks against slavery offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, they were much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles."

Ending slavery seemed like a matter of common sense to the abolitionists, and it seems like common sense to most of us today. We could list a number of issues of which that could be said. But as Noll observes, common sense arguments that stand or fall on the basis of intuition or instincts are easily dismissed, rightly or wrongly, by those whose instincts differ.

Noll makes another astute observation about the rather glaring blind spots of Christians on both sides of the slavery debate. For all the theological disagreement over the extent to which scriptural support for slavery exists, few called the countrys underlying racism into question at that time: So seriously fixed in the minds of white Americans, including most abolitionists, was the certainty of black racial inferiority that it overwhelmed biblical testimony about race, even though most Protestant Americans claimed that Scripture was in fact their supreme authority in adjudicating such matters.

Eventually, of course, the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished. But two issues of immense importance to public theology remained largely unaddressed. Those issues were race and economy.

As Noll puts it, systemic racism of course remained as the great moral anomaly in a supposedly Christian America and theological incoherence in the face of modern economic realities has remained a major problem for Christian thinking ever since the Civil War.

Public theology has always been a tricky thing, and we need all the help we can get. Faced with this ongoing challenge, the theological crisis that was the Civil War remains an instructive cautionary tale against interpreting the Bible haphazardly. The way we engage with scripture, after all, has enduring public consequences.

- See more at: http://timhoiland.com/2014/02/the-public-consequences-of-haphazard-theologies/
4347695
In the conclusion of this excellent book the author Mr. Pearce lists quite a number of things that a believer would have to give a plausible explanation for or believe to be true if one was also going to claim that both Matthew and Luke's accounts were factually true. So when I see reviewers nitpicking individual things to dispute and then claiming that this shows Pearce has failed to show that these accounts are not true, I have to ask have they met Pearce's challenge in the conclusion of his book? I submit that is an enormous hill to climb even if you don't agree with every single thing that is in his list. Certainly almost all of those things must be explained or believed by the true believer.

Like every case for or against something you have to look at the totality of the evidence and the totality of what you must assume to be true given your position.  I think Pearce has compiled an excellent case against the historical truth of the Nativity stories, and that it is ridiculous to believe all that stuff really happened. If these stories were part of a different religion the same believers would laugh them off as myths.
1997916
While most Christians already have a fixed view and are unwilling to change (drcraigvideos, this means YOU!), more moderate believers of any stripe would do well to read these chapters and do some further reading in their own time.

In a nutshell, faith fails because it requires us to jettison our desire to know things empirically. Dave Eller explains how anthropology explains all-too-well how religions spring up and propagate. For more information on how religions begin, google "John From" and "cargo cult." In six words or less, religion tailors itself to its culture. Religion has no basis or interest in truth. Just watch a lecture or speech from William Lane Craig. To him (and many evangelicals) the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" trumps all arguments and evidence. There's no reasoning with such a social parasite.

Valerie Tarico tackles the next topic - why faith is a psychological phenomenon and therefore in the realm of the utterly natural. For starters, when all the evidence (and it already it) is against Christianity, fundamentalists like Lee Strobel and Ravi Zacharias will still believe. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about anything except avoiding afterlife torture. And when they speak in 'tongues,' they're making it up as they go along. Just ask anyone who has conducted an fMRI scan on them.

Chapter Three continues in this vein with pharmacist Jason Long. It's just as well-written and accessible as the rest of the book.

Chapter Six demolishes the so-called "historical evidence" for Jesus' life and resurrection. Also, "messiahs" that cheat death are a dime a dozen.

John Loftus tackles chapter twelve by addressing the problem of animal suffering (something theists can only do by arguing from ignorance and stating that god has some 'morally sufficient reason' to allow young fawns to burn alive in forest fires). So if you still believe in a god that is perfectly good, you don't care about the suffering of sentient creatures, and you don't believe in morality for any human being except yourself and your in-group members. (END RANT)

As a whole, this book will grab and keep your attention for as long as you are willing and able to keep reading. Please buy a copy and share it with your moderately religious friends (i.e. not Epydemic2020, aaronk1994 or anyone of that ilk).
234986
The perspective of the author is that of a liberal protestant with little understanding of genuine faith as described in the Bible.  His lack of understanding causes him to denigrate what he doesn't understand.  It is a perspective that has some value in causing one to consider the relationship of faith and public life.
1211813
Mere Christianity makes you think about what you believe and why you believe it. It challenges the "why" of your faith.
1587130
First, I should disclose that I agree with Spiegel's thesis that "atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God's existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of the atheist paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors" (113-114). I noticed the patterns first in the lives of Nietzsche (whom Spiegel mentions) and Foucault (whom he does not) prior to this reading.

Spiegel expects that the idea will encounter resistance (and it probably will). He compiles previously released information and packages it for popular consumption, drawing significantly from Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew's "conversion," and Paul C. Vitz. In fact, Spiegel does Plantinga the honor of dedicating the book to him as "a gigantic intellect with a humble heart." Moreover, Spiegel maintains a humble tone throughout which honors Plantinga and is often lacking in apologetics.

Spiegel's goal is unique. He is not making a case for theism or defending it against the attacks of atheists. His argument is a flanking attack that responds to the "New Atheists" by calling into question the source of their unbelief.  Even though they claim their unbelief is rooted in reason, Spiegel sees the rational component of their unbelief secondary to their immorality or broken paternal relationships.

He blends biblical ideas (Romans 1, Ephesians 4, etc.) and virtue epistemological concepts to produce an account of how behaving badly and thinking badly decay into a downward spiral of moral and intellectual blindness (particularly in the areas of ethics, theology, and human nature).

For the link between atheism and broken paternal relationships, Spiegel draws heavily on  Paul C. Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless. "The lack of a good father is a handicap when it comes to faith (70)," but not an insurmountable barrier. While this link will likely be unpopular or attacked as irrelevant on ad hominem grounds, let's not forget that non-theists have already applied similar psychoanalytical criticisms against theists. Furthermore, enough examples are given to give us pause to reconsider the role of a paternal relationship in shaping our perceptions of God.

I think the value of this book is really threefold. First, it helps encourage believers that matters of belief and unbelief are not purely a matter of the intellect, but are issues of the heart and will. Secondly, it should remind believers to be sensitive to the things which may be going on in the hearts of the unbelievers they want to reach with the gospel. Thirdly, it is a call to unbelievers to consider non-rational factors that may be barriers to their belief in God.

It is a witty, quick read and is worth the couple of hours invested. I hope it is read by many.