I just recently got Dan Barker’s book Losing Faith and In Faith, so I’ve not had a chance to read it yet. Currently I’m trying to find time to finish Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle. I just finished Acharya’s (D. M. Murdock) book Who Was Jesus and wrote a review for her, which I need to place on my site soon.

I haven’t read the other three books you suggested (except for Misquoting Jesus they’re not on my book list yet). My problem is trying to find time to read all these other books, but then I also get VERY sick of religion sometimes too. I was there for a while, with two religion courses (one World Religions, required, and the other Buddhism) and the topic in my literature class having to do with early American lit. I’ll be glad to be done with this degree. All I need it one more English class (major requirement) and I’m done. I sometimes regret taking religion as a minor, but my curiousity of other religions got the best of me. They’re all alike though- as far as story senerios and thinking goes (some more illogical and/or cruel than others). We’re not really missing much.

I just received these three:

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
By: Neil Asher Silberman (Author), Israel Finkelstein (Author)

David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition [Bargain Price]
By: Israel Finkelstein (Author), Neil Asher Silberman (Author)

Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
By: Dan Barker

And I’m currently reading this one and loving it so far:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
By: Bart D. Ehrman

I’ve got a pretty good background in world religions and in different denominations of Christianity, but all of my historical data comes from Christian apologists, so I’m trying to get an unbiased perspective now that I’m free of Christianity.

Thanks again.

You can also read books by Tom Harpur, John Shelby Spong, Robert Price, and alike that address some of the apologists statements or if you are so brave, you can read an apologist’s book, but I am not as up on them as I am those who are very liberal. C. S. Lewis and Billy Graham are apologist though.

Spong addresses the idea of original sin, as well as other things, and how damaging that is to a person in some of his books, one being Why Christianity Must Change or Die. He addresses some of the other fallicies of Evangelicalism in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Sins of Scripture. Price addresses his thoughts concerning all of this when he response to the author of Purpose Driven Life with his book Reason Driven Life. I would also recommend a book on the psychology of religion, but they are very expensive, but IF you can find one at your local library check it out because they also address cults, cult-like behaviour, and the “norm” of religious ideology.

As for the multitude of deities in the OT, Victor Matthews has a book called Old Testament Parallels, which discusses not only the gods, but also how Hebrew stories relate to the Egyptian stories. (He teaches a similar class using his book here at the local university in the religious studies dept.) Harpur discusses the Horus/Osiris myth in his book The Pagan Christ and Karen Armstrong discusses mythology in her book The Short History of Myth. And if you are so willing to venture into the realm of mythology further and how it all relates there are Acharya’s books too.

As for the differences in theological training, that comes with knowing a variety of ministers and observation. My relatives go to church that pull people off the street and make them ministers all because those people say things that move them and they have this superstitious belief that that person has the message of God. That is a far cry different from Mike Clawson and Bishop Spong’s training. Both went to different seminary schools, but even so they have a knowledge far beyond those pulled off the streets. Again, the knowledge of what those who do have some sort of training is also based on experience too, because what one learns in religion classes is a far cry than just reading the book and being trained in apologetics. Apologetics is easily taught in a few weekend seminars or retreat. It is not necessarily a class in a seminary or university study of religion, although one can take a course on C. S. Lewis or alike if they wish.

The ones who go to seminary and alike are ordain in a far different manner too. They aren’t just pulled off the streets and told, “OK you move us, therefore you have the “word of God” and are now a minister.” There is the Rite of Succession (the idea of laying on of hands by other ministers that supposedly dates back to the original apostles who were “ordain” by Jesus) among those churches as well as an indepth study of religion, with the focus being on Christianity.

Ray Comfort has none of that under his belt and he is destinctly different from any of those I mentioned, including Mike C. Ray has a destinct air of cultish brainwashing and if it doesn’t fit into what he was taught, he can’t reply to it in any manner (doesn’t fit his programming). I asked the same question of Mike C. once and actually got an answer from him that was reasonably rational, logical, and educated. Observe and you can see a destinct difference between Ray (and his cronies) and Mike. Ray et al are “programmed” and Mike is not (although some here may beg to differ, but observation of the two says otherwise). It is the difference between cult-like behaviour and non-cult-like behaviour, which is addressed in books concerning the psychology of religion.

I really enjoyed your response and have heard similar things before, but never with that level of detail. Can you recommend any further reading on the things you addressed?

Thanks!

I’ve been watching this very closely and I see what they are doing. They are going after what seems like easy targets. My post shows a degree of education and extremely difficult questions not addressed in apologestic, because I made those answers unavailable to them when I stipulated they could not use them without substancial evidence. Secondly, I showed that I had some theological training in that I knew which deity was which and which ones were demonized based on which scripture.

Because they have the warped idea of Truth and Love, along with only training in apologics and no actual theological training, they are going to avoid me like the plague in favour of those who appear to be easy targets and possibly fall for apolgetics. I’m not a target that falls within their frame work and they are categorizing me in with the ones who are being hostile.

I told one of my liberal Christian friends about this and she felt my question was a reasonable question given Ray’s attitude, but she also said that it does show a level of education that they obviously don’t have. She also thinks I’m playing my cards right by not informing Ray and his cronies my position and that I do have a degree of education that out weighs theirs.

However, my question is not an easy target like some others, esp since I said they could not use apolgetics, so they aren’t going to go for it. They are simply going to dodge it and say I’m hostile. Now that is corruption at it’s finest. I find it rather sad that they are afraid to debate me on the subject. It shows their degree of ignorance.

He’s not going to respond because he knows he can’t win even with solipsism. The man doesn’t even have a theological degree and if he can read anything into my questions, then he might guess I have some aces up my sleeve. Thing is, I’m not going to reveal them anytime soon, but if he’s figured out anything based on my questions, he’s not even going to try which shows how much theology and mythology he really knows. Which is didley because he doesn’t even have a degree.