Christian Apologetics Sourcebook

“I am the way, the truth, and the life” John 14:16 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” 1 Peter 3:15 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Mathew 10:16 Christian Apologetics Sourcebook • Book Summaries • Web sites • Summer School • Lecture Outline Particular emphasis on sources that may not be well-known in the UK

Contents • Outwitting Atheism • The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions • Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies • The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection • Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears, Questions, and Pleasures • The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition • Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/ • Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/ • The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation • The Truth About Christianity • How Christianity Changed the World • What's So Great about Christianity • The Truth About Islam • The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam • Virgins? What Virgins? • Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism • The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims • The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims • Slavery, Terrorism and Islam • Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins • The Costs of Political Correctness • The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars • Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future • Summer School Course • The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/ • Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do • Lecture Outline • 5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87, • Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources) • Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria) • Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities) • Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy) • Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)

http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I6OYHRD112ZVX&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I6OYHRD112ZVX&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328789173&sr=1-1 The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions Author: David Berlinski Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: Basic Books; Reprint edition (September 22, 2009) David Berlinski holds a PhD from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He is the best-selling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. Berlinski writes frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris, France. Militant atheism is on the rise. In recent years Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have produced a steady stream of best-selling books denigrating religious belief. These authors are merely the leading edge of a larger movement that includes much of the scientific community. In response, mathematician David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. The Devil’s Delusion is a brilliant, incisive, and funny book that explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it is the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world. Review- Any book by David Berlinski is bound to be fun. He is simply one of the most erudite writers in popular science and mathematics today. Those who particularly like seeing sacred cows treated with a hint of sarcasm and irreverance will enjoy his writing on almost any subject, but this book, attacking the "new atheism" as it does, is especially delightful if for no other reason than for how pompous writers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchins are in their approach to this subject. In brief, Berlinski's argument boils down to three main points: there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point that used to be widely recognized and even extolled by writers like SJ Gould), most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion. I think Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident. Claims, for example, that one "should" only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims. Indeed, I have friends who resolutely insist that materialism is "all there is" while remaining blissfully unaware of the fact that such a statement could not arise from strictly empirical observation. Regarding the new atheist approach to Aquinas, Berlinski correctly notes that the critics of St. Thomas really do not understand his arguments. Take for example the famous cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. In its simplest form, this argument takes the form of a syllogism. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause. Agnostic that he is, Berlinski correctly notes that this is not actually an argument for God. It is an argument that the universe began to exist, meaning it required a cause. Aquinas, of course, argued this cause was "God" and very specifically the God of the New Testament and Catholic Church. But one need not arrive at this conclusion. It is possible that the universe simply goes on forever. One event causes another and so on back to infinity. (This was the position of David Hume and it has been popular among the atheist set ever since.) Still, Berlinski asks, if we saw a row of dominoes falling, "would we, without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling. Really?"[p. 69] Of course not. We fall back upon such reasoning only when discussing God. But of course Hume's argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning, and much of cosmology since then has been an effort to try to explain away the obvious implications of this. (One should also consult on this matter God and the Astronomers by another thoughtful agnostic, Robert Jastrow.) Scientists too, it seems, for all their vaunted objectivity, often find their research agendas driven by their theological concerns. But how does a "scientist" who also publicly promotes atheism respond to Aquinas and the rather stunning vindication of his argument by 20th century science. Well, Dawkins for one simply asserts that Aquinas failed to consider the possibility that God was subject to infinite regress. Amazing. As one reviewer put it, to call this argument sophomoric is an insult to sophomores, though he did not specify whether he was referring to high school or college sophomores. Aquinas did not "assume" God was not subject to infinite regress. It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible and Dawkins, should he want to refute such an argument, needs to address it directly, which of course he does not. And so it goes. Berlinski examines one argument for atheism after another and finds each wanting. The authors of these arguments are logically inconsistent. They appeal to multiple universes and dimensions, a weak anthropic principle, physical laws that change from place to place coupled with as yet undiscovered universal laws, and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam's Razor. They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects. Perhaps the highlight of the book for me was Berlinski's decision to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted that Darwinism "misled science into a dead end" but "we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists .. in fighting against the creationists."[p.197] Indeed. Any theory is better than an alternative that might imply God or some other non material cause. But what would motivate a supposed scientist to make such outlandish claims? And it is here that Berlinski is at his dead level best. For some scientists, and many more non-scientist, science has itself become a religion. And it is a religion with a very jealous God, who can have no other Gods before Him. Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328788194&sr=1-1 Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies Author: David Bentley Hart Paperback: 272 pages Publisher: Yale University Press (February 23, 2010) David Bentley Hart is the author of several books, including In the Aftermath: Provocations and Laments and The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. He lives in Providence, RI. Currently it is fashionable to be devoutly undevout. Religion’s most passionate antagonists—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others—have publishers competing eagerly to market their various denunciations of religion, monotheism, Christianity, and Roman Catholicism. But contemporary antireligious polemics are based not only upon profound conceptual confusions but upon facile simplifications of history or even outright historical ignorance: so contends David Bentley Hart in this bold correction of the distortions. One of the most brilliant scholars of religion of our time, Hart provides a powerful antidote to the New Atheists’ misrepresentations of the Christian past, bringing into focus the truth about the most radical revolution in Western history. Hart outlines how Christianity transformed the ancient world in ways we may have forgotten: bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great dignity on human beings, subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society, and elevating charity above all virtues. He then argues that what we term the “Age of Reason” was in fact the beginning of the eclipse of reason’s authority as a cultural value. Hart closes the book in the present, delineating the ominous consequences of the decline of Christendom in a culture that is built upon its moral and spiritual values. Review#1- Fascinating correction of "the narrative“ To begin with, the book should probably be titled "Atheist Delusions About Ancient History." This book is not so much a debate with our Fashionable New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens -- "The Gang of Four?? :-) ) It is more a long, and endlessly fascinating, revisit of Ancient History. It may not be surprising to learn that there are at least two main narratives commonly provided for "The History of Western Civilization." Here they are (very compressed): Narrative #1: The Christian Version. "The world was lost in pagan immorality and darkness; man enslaved man and man dominated woman. Then, with the Birth of Christ, came the Divine Light, and the world was forever transformed. The barbarian, knuckle-dragging rapists of Europe were baptised and brought to Jesus, and the world got much, much better. Even today, there is no other known source of European civilization and we reject it at our peril." One of the most popular novels of all time, "Quo Vadis," is in this narrative tradition. Narrative #2: The Modernist Version. "We had the Glory of Greece and the Splendor of Rome, but alas a bunch of superstitious people completely replaced the glories of Paganism with the knuckle-dragging ignorance of Blind Faith. The result was the Dark Ages, which only ended when Heroic Forces restored the classics of Greece to a benighted Europe. Then came the Enlightenment, and Democracy, and all manner of good things, once the Europeans cast off the shackles of Faith." Arthur C. Clarke and many other modern thinkers followed this narrative. Whether you approve of my "summaries" or not, the point is that they are both tremendous oversimplifications and they are both therefore silly. If you want to be a propagandist, OK, take one of those simple-minded narratives. But if you really want to understand the history of Western Civilization, you need much more information. One myth which has been repeated endlessly is that "Christian mobs destroyed the Library of Alexandria." This is completely false. In the first place, there were two libraries, and there have been a number of "suspects" beginning with Caesar, but nobody really knows what happened. (A man named Parsons wrote a whole book on the subject.) Another myth is that Christianity somehow destroyed the original Greek manuscripts of Aristotle, and that we had to get them back from the Arabs, in Arabic. If this myth were true, how could we possibly have all of Aristotle in the original Greek today? (The original Greek manuscripts were preserved in Byzantium.) Things like this make the book under review invaluable, and there is one larger discussion I would like to share with you. It concerns Galileo, and the Myth of Galileo -- apparently launched by the great hypocrite Brecht. Basically, all you need to know is that "everything you think you know about Galileo is false," most particularly the idea that Galileo and other modern astronomers were engaged in some sort of running war with the dogmatic Catholic Church. Not at all. In the end, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were engaged in a much larger and more difficult battle: they were overturning the dead hand of Aristotle, which had stifled European science for thousands of years. Newton's final victory was the collapse of Hellenistic "science" --- such as it was. Well, I've either stirred up your interest, or I haven't! Back to Beethoven Op. 127. :-)

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328788194&sr=1-1 Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies Author: David Bentley Hart Paperback: 272 pages Publisher: Yale University Press (February 23, 2010) Review #2- The only thing I dislike about Atheist Delusions is its title. A few other reviewers have pointed out that it seems to indicate the book will be a rebuttal of atheist writers like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the rest. It is not. Indeed, David Bentley Hart asserts that men like them are hardly worth attention because of the infantile level on which they argue. What Hart does, instead, is provide a history lesson for the "fashionable enemies" of Christianity. The delusions in question, Hart says, are mostly historical ones. One will not discuss religion with an atheist long before history comes up. What of the injustice of the Inquisition? The Crusades? The long-running war of religion against science? The Reformation and the subsequent wars of religion? We hear constantly that religion (read: Christianity) is the most destructive force in human history. It is Hart's purpose to debunk the delusions and historical fabrications that characterize historical arguments against Christianity. The primary focus of Hart's book, hinted at in the subtitle, is the "Christian Revolution," those first, tense centuries AD when Christianity replaced ancient paganism. The pagan era has been eulogized since in the Enlightenment as an era of peace and progress, of scientific advance that was stymied by the bigoted, book-burning Christians of the "Dark Ages." Hart shows that, while we owe much to the ancient world, it was also an irredeemably ugly place of slavery, infanticide, of callousness and hopeless reconciliation to the whims of cruel fate. Christianity, which he calls the only true revolution in history, changed everything from the bottom up--and since Christianity was first accepted among the lower classes and slaves, it changed everything quite literally from the bottom up. Christians did not, Hart shows, burn the Library of Alexandria, or torture millions during the Inquisition, persecute Galileo, or wreak havoc across Europe during the Reformation in the name of religion. Christianity gave the world hospitals, modern science, and the moral framework to regard all life as worthy of life. In this coup de grace, Hart even points out that it would not even be possible for men like Dawkins and Hitchens to make their arguments of justice and fairness were it not for the "Christian Revolution," that their concepts of justice and fairness are rooted not just in Western Civilization but in Christianity itself. The only way in which Atheist Delusions left me wanting was in a discussion of the Crusades. I am a military and medieval historian and so this topic is near and dear to my heart, but Hart only gives the Crusades a paragraph or two at the beginning of one chapter. He claims that the Crusades were not rooted in any Christian doctrine of just war--but they were, and were he to investigate further he would see the reasons the Crusades were considered just. (To take up the slack on this topic, I recommend Thomas F. Madden's New Concise History of the Crusades.) But that one niggling issue aside, Atheist Delusions is one of the best books I have ever read--and I do not say so lightly. I read through it as quickly as I could and have thought about it daily ever since. I've found more food for thought, more intellectual challenge and stimulation here than in any book I've read in years. Highly recommended. Review #3- I will forgo the standard adjectives that came to mind when I read this book: brilliant, stunning, breathtaking. That is a given when one reads David Bentley Hart. This book is a combination of alternative history, apologetics, and smash-mouth theology. Hart claims the Christian faith represented a revolution in the story of humanity (ix). It shattered the pagan cosmology (115) and introduced new categories of reality, the dimension of the human person for one. However, Hart's thesis is more subtle than that. He is not simply saying "Christianity has done a lot of good to the world; therefore, you need to belive,"--that would be a variant of the genetic fallacy that Hart so masterfully refutes. Rather, Christianity has its own telling of the story, a telling that reworks the categories of human existence within the framework of its own story. Over against the story is the narrative of modernity. Modernity's telos is that of freedom. Its highest ideal is putting trust in the absence of a transcendental. Its freedom is nihilistic. Modernity's current defenders, and this is the first half of Hart's book, retell the Western story in a way to demonize Christianity in their defense of modernity. Therefore, Hart meticulously shows how Christianity did not impede science (the chapter on Galileo is hilarious), burn witches (the Inquisition, despite its bad moments, actually limited the bloodiness of the State's persecution of heretics), or fight religious wars (the Crusades are actually a different case, worthy of a conversation but not under this topic). One slight criticism: Given Hart's thesis of the Christian revolution of thought and humanity, its shattering and rebuilding of worlds, it is rather surprising to see Hart end on so dismal a note. If the Christian Revolution is as powerful as he says and as I believe, and if the detractors of Christianity are slightly moronic, as appears to be the case, does this not ultimately point to the triumph of the Christian narrative? Of course, the word triumph needs to be carefully qualified. Conclusion: What many of Hart's readers might not realize with this book, but this is actually Hart's clearest piece of writing. Most of Hart's writing (*Beauty of the Infinite*), while beautiful, is borderline incoherent. This book, on the other hand, is understandable. EDIT: I've actually become more critical of this book in particular, and Hart in general over the past year. Hart is quite learned and makes a number of pointed responses to the "New Atheist Detractors." And to be fair, if the New Atheists are going to ridicule Christianity in the most scathing of terms, they need to be ready to play hardball. That being said, this book started well, had a nice historical review, but had one of the most lame conclusions I've ever read. Imagine Beethoven's 9th ending with everyone humming "Kum-by-yah." I mean, there is a major dialectical tension in this book. If Hart is correct on the Christian narrative, then how does his conclusion follow?!?

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Trust-Jesus-Questions-Pleasures/dp/0802489729/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3DV229UPKXRW8&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Why-Trust-Jesus-Questions-Pleasures/dp/0802489729/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3DV229UPKXRW8&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Trust-Jesus-Sterrett-Dave/dp/0802489729/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328785651&sr=1-1-fkmr0 Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears, Questions, and Pleasures Author: Dave Sterrett Paperback: 176 pages Publisher: Moody Publishers; New Edition edition (March 1, 2010) DAVE STERRETT is a Christian evangelist for a new generation. He is a philosophy professor through Liberty University's online program, a pro-life leader with 40 Days for Life, a frequent radio guest, and conference speaker. He has authored Why Trust Jesus? (Moody Publishers, 2010) and coauthored with apologist Josh McDowell The Coffee House Chronicles (Moody Publishers, 2011) with titles, Is the Bible True...Really?, Who is Jesus...Really?, Did the Resurrection Happen...Really?, and "O" God, A Dialogue on Truth and Oprah's Spirituality (WND Books, 2009). Sterrett graduated from Southern Evangelical Seminary and is pursuing a second master's degree in Philosophy at the University of Dallas. There is greater value to this book than you'll realize when you first read through it. You have to appreciate it for what it is. Sterrett's "Why Trust Jesus?" is a popular level book that addresses many questions and objections in today's society for why one shouldn't trust Jesus. This is not a piece of scholarship that warrants peer review. If you want scholastic answers and peer review, go to a journal or a book that focuses on that specific objection you may have. If you want a general, but sufficient, response to one of these questions, than this is the book you need. Intro. The Need for Trust-- The introduction is brief but important for to answer the books thesis (why one should trust Jesus). Sterrett examines what it really means to "trust" someone and why it's so important. He lays out what type of people are generally trustworthy (truthful, reliable, transparent, authentic, loving, faith, and forgiving) and then goes from there. Is this Jesus? This section really helps lay down the foundation to the answer the book provides. Ch. 1 So Many Spiritual Paths-- This chapter may be good from someone who is awestruck at postmodernism and/or leaning towards universalism/inclusivism. Why do Christians seem so intolerant? They're so arrogant in saying Jesus is the only way. Why are people so intolerant of the intolerant? All great questions. This chapter really lays down a worldview for Christianity, that is, there is absolute truth and Jesus is the only way to heaven. As a student in academia myself, I rarely see genuine postmodernism, however, this is really important in high schools and for people who interact outside of a classroom where the vein of social worldview plays its role. Ch. 2 Not Sure God is Real-- Arguably, I would personally place this chapter at 1 instead of 2, but it's not that big of a deal. I have a particular interest in natural theology and the arguments for the existence of God. I personally enjoyed reading this chapter and Sterrett sources, yet again, are of trustworthy note. He opens with CS Lewis' testimony and gets in to miracles and his response (primarily to David Hume) is extremely brief and to the point. Laying aside the Bible, Sterrett meets the secularist on his own terms, without using the Bible as an authority. The first major argument presented is the argument from design and focused on both the biochemical design and the cosmological design closing with Antony Flew's conversion to deism in response to the design argument. The second argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe, mores specifically, the kalam cosmological argument. This one's my favorite. (If you're a young earth creationist, close your eyes for a page). I don't know Sterrett's personal views on creation but I appreciate him using the kalam here and using it appropriately (I'm an old earther in case you were wondering). Ch. 3 Been Let Down Before-- This is really an emotional objection and Sterrett takes it for what it is and handles it appropriately. He focuses on the promises of God and obeying His commandments. Ch. 4 I'm Doing Fine Without Him-- This was a great chapter! It's easy to think you're okay without God but you're not. Take a look at yourself and see what you need to fill your day. What does it take to satisfy you? Food? Money? Women/Men? Porn? Cars? Social status? The problem is with taking pleasure and satisfaction in temporal pleasures is that it is temporal! It doesn't last! You will always need more and more and more. God is the only satisfaction to anything you could ever need. If you need a commentary on this chapter, read the book of Ecclesiastes. Ch. 5 Trust Myself-- This chapter really just focuses on trust Jesus as God and that we can't do it by ourselves and that Jesus sustains everything there is. The section is brief and the main thesis is spirituality and truth in Jesus. There's a lot of focus on pantheism, which may take you off guard for a second, but you'll get back on track. Ch. 6 Who is the Real Jesus?-- This is a little more academically oriented, much like chapter 2. This is an evaluation of the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith (two distinctions only made in academia). He really focuses on the Scriptural presentation and representation of Jesus. Ch. 7 Why Jesus Over Another Spiritual Leader?-- This chapter could have been combined with with chapter 1. Basically, Sterrett argues that Jesus is the one and only true God. Sterrett answers the questions of who Jesus really was and is there good reason to trust that He existed and is who He said He was. Ch. 8 So Much Suffering-- This is important and must be taken seriously by the Christian. There's the intellectual objection because of evil and the emotional. If the objection is intellectual go to a journal or book that discusses that. Sterrett discusses the emotional problem. I'm not denying there is intellectual claims or arguments, but the emotional problem needs to be handled differently. It's handled by taking everything back to the cross of Jesus and the suffering that He went to. It was because of our evil that Jesus suffered to redeem us from that very evil that put Him up there. This is a somber yet joyful passage. If you don't know Dr. Gary Habermas, you need to read the last few pages of Habermas' chapter on suffering. Ch. 9 Failure-- This chapter is encouraging. It nails down the whole nature of grace and when we fail, it's something that makes grace appreciated. This will change your perspective of failure and your reaction to it. In the end, after a little pep talk here and there in the chapter, it's God's forgiveness that allows you to trust Jesus because He won't fail you. Sterrett has a legitimate amount of research done for his book with great sources. He cites some of the leading scholars (so if you have a scholastic question, go to the endnote and use that source). I appreciate the book on the popular level where it is. I'm not going to use it in a research paper but I would use it for a small group study. I'm actually having some young leaders read this book during the upcoming summer to help them prepare spiritually and to help engage their mind a little bit. The book will get you thinking, it won't take you to all the answers, but it will get you going. It's easy to read and relevant. I appreciate Sterrett's work in writing this book and I thank him for sharing it. Please buy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801031141/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnkhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801031141/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Legend-Historical-Reliability-Tradition/dp/0801031141/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786594&sr=1-1 Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Author: Eddy and Boyd Paperback: 480 pages Publisher: Baker Academic (August 1, 2007) Paul Rhodes Eddy (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Gregory A. Boyd (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Much New Testament scholarship of the last 200 years has seen fit to relegate the Jesus tradition as recorded in the Gospels to the realm of fiction.By drawing together recent scholarship from a variety of fields, including history, anthropology, ethnography, folklore, and New Testament studies, Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd show that the evidence actually supports--rather than refutes--the historical reliability of the Gospels and the existence of Jesus. “The set of respectable ways to argue that Jesus was legendary or never existed just got a whole lot smaller. Two highly qualified scholars with impeccable credentials have granted the skeptics their wish: to subject the Jesus-myth arguments to critical scrutiny instead of simply dismissing them as 'anti-God' or 'just so much rhetoric'. Maybe now people like Robert Price and Earl Doherty wish they hadn't. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy conduct such a thorough demolition of the Jesus myth and make such a strong case for the general reliability of the Gospels that, unless dramatic new discoveries come to light from the ancient world, I doubt anyone will be able on the available evidence to produce such an argument which withstands their criticisms. Skeptics will no longer be able to simply refer to 'the writings of Robert Price and Earl Doherty' and act as if that settled the issue of Christian origins. They will have to pass through Boyd and Eddy first…” …”I will just make a few comments on the substance of the book, as the best word to describe it is 'exhaustive'. The authors try to address EVERY issue or question which arises with respect to determining the historicity of the Gospels and wrestle with the views of many other scholars. Less attention is given to the Jesus Seminar (whose views Boyd demolished in his Cynic Sage Or Son Of God?) and more to radical theorists such as Doherty, Price, Barker, Weeden, et al. With the exception of the important (indeed, according to the authors, most important) middle section of the book which deals with oral tradition, there is little new argumentation. Anyone who has read Meier, Sanders, Wright, Theissen, Dunn or Bauckham on the historical Jesus will find much of the material familiar. Indeed, it becomes obvious that serious scholars HAVE engaged and refuted most of the arguments which Jesus-mythers advance, but the lines of evidence are presented in piece-meal fashion in various parts of various books. Where Boyd and Eddy excel is bringing all this material together and putting it in dialogue with explicit statements and arguments of the Jesus-mythers. It would be a mistake to think that this book is solely a defensive reply to the Jesus myth, however. The book also presents a constructive case for the reliability of the Gospels, again drawing from the best results of the last two centuries of historical study of the New Testament. Reading this book will acquaint you with all the critical tools and results one must be familiar with to offer a responsible historical assessment of these documents. That is no small feat. Indeed, I know of no other book (even Dunn's massive Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1), to which the authors are heavily indebted) that covers this amount of material. Add to this an important preliminary treatment of philosophical issues surrounding the question of miracle and divine action, and you have a historical Jesus book unparalleled in the history of scholarship. Its interdisciplinarity is its major strength.” http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328626487&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786675&sr=1-1 Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony Author: Richard Bauckham Paperback: 504 pages Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (September 22, 2008) Richard Bauckham is professor of New Testament studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. A fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he has also written Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World. This momentous book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus. Noted scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as anonymous community traditions, asserting instead that they were transmitted in the names of the original eyewitnesses. Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, proposing instead the Jesus of testimony as presented by the Gospels.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Habermas+Gary&x=15&y=20 Habermas is not well-known in the UK.

http://risenjesus.com/ Theologian Gives Top 10 Myths About the Resurrection By Alex Murashko , Christian Post Reporter, April 6, 2012|8:23 am Did the disciples think they saw Jesus after his death on the cross as the result of hallucination or did they really see a resurrected Christ? Theologian Mike Licona, leader of Risen Jesus ministries, gives an answer to this question in a short video that is part of the "Top 10 Myths about the Resurrection" series that features his teachings on the subject. The ten video clips are available online through apologetics websites, including Credo House Ministries. "The most common myth pertaining to Jesus' resurrection is the earliest Christians had visions of Jesus exalted in heaven and the visions were hallucinations," Licona told The Christian Post via email. Most Christians "don't have a clue" how to not only explain the resurrection, but how to defend their Christian faith, he said. "And we're paying a price for that in terms of our decreasing influence in Western culture," he continued. "There are numerous reasons for this state of affairs. Perhaps the primary one is that most Christians don't require evidence for their faith or try not to dwell on anything that challenges it." Licona's ministry is dedicated to making theology more accessible in order to deepen the faith of Christians. Like us on Facebook He starts the video about the hallucination myth by explaining that historians believe there were hallucinogens in the 1st century and there certainly was wine. He then begins to build a case for the possibility of hallucination rhetorically – as if he was defending the position. "So, maybe they were grief stricken. They took to the bottle, they took drugs. They experienced these grief hallucinations. They thought they were appearances of Jesus, so they hallucinated and were convinced that he was raised from the dead," Licona says in the video. Later in the video he says, "Now consider this. The reports we have say that not one, not two, but all 100 percent of Jesus disciples' experienced a visual appearance of Jesus. This is unthinkable in terms of what we know about hallucinations. It also doesn't explain his appearance to Paul. Jesus would have been the last person in the world that Paul would have wanted to see. "So, the hallucination hypothesis suffers from a lot of problems. There are many more," he concluded. A DVD available on the ministry website explains in further detail how the hallucination view is "utterly unsustainable." Some of the other top 10 myths presented in the videos by Licona include subjects titled, "Contradictions in the Bible," "Pagan Parallels in the Mystery Religions," and "Apparent Death Theory." Licona's background includes being interviewed by Lee Strobel for his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appearing in Strobel's video The Case for Christ. Books that he has authored or co-authored include, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Paul Meets Muhammad, and The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. On the Web: http://risenjesus.com/ http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/ten-myths-of-the-resurrection/ READ: AN APOLOGIST DISPELS THE NOTION THAT JESUS' RESURRECTION IS A LEGEND SPREAD DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/the-resurrection-of-jesus-an-unlikely-easter-conversation-9224/

http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/the-resurrection-of-jesus-an-unlikely-easter-conversation-9224/http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/the-resurrection-of-jesus-an-unlikely-easter-conversation-9224/ http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/author/mikel-del-rosario/ The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally One Easter, a relative cornered me at a family reunion and wanted to talk about the resurrection of Jesus. Let's just call her my dear Aunt Sally. Some people try to stay away from politics and religion a parties. Not Aunt Sally. :-) Aunt Sally was Religious Studies major and she started off by telling me that Jesus didn’t come back from the dead in any real sense--that the story of Jesus' resurrection just emerged over decades after the crucifixion. She said that Jewish peasants who missed Jesus and needed a Messiah figure basically made the whole thing up--probably because it helped them feel better emotionally and things like that. But she said something else, too. She said that it doesn't really matter if the resurrection of Jesus actually happened. After all, can't we draw inspiration from a story even if it’s not true? In this post, I'll share how you can respond to these two challenges: It doesn't matter if Jesus really rose from the dead The story of the resurrection of Jesus emerged over decades after the crucifixion Does it really matter if the resurrection of Jesus is a total lie? I'll bet you've heard this kind of question before: "Can't we draw inspiration from a story even if it’s not true?" Jesus and the Truman Show This reminds me of an old Jim Carry movie: “The Truman Show.” If you've seen the film, you might remember that Truman basically lived the perfect life. But he had no clue that he was part of this fantasy world that was made up by the people who produced the Truman Show. Truman had no clue his view of the world was built on a total lie. Now I guess you could say, “What does it really matter?” I mean, he’s happy, right? But Truman got suspicious and he tried to figure out what's going on. And I don't blame him. I mean, what would you do? Wouldn’t you want to know if your best friends were a bunch of fakes? If your idea of the world was based on a total lie? I would. That’s because the truth matters--especially when we're talking about spiritual stuff. The apostle Paul thought so, too. Here's what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17 (ESV): "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain...and your faith is in vain...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Paul wasn't a fan of drawing inspiration from fiction. He was convinced that if Jesus didn't come back from the dead in any real sense, the entire faith tradition is a waste of time--and that Christian religion is based on a total lie. As a Christian, I've got to be OK with saying that if the resurrection of Jesus was faked, we're in the same kind of spot that Truman was. We wouldn't have hope in anything real. In fact, we'd be totally hopeless. Our worldview would be based on a total lie. You might consider sharing this illustration and idea with a skeptical family member who asks something like, "Can't we draw inspiration from a story even if it’s not true?" on Easter Sunday. It's interesting that virtually every critical scholar believes that 1 Corinthians is an authentic letter of Paul. Even more, that Paul's conversion is a fact of history. Paul and History Christians and non-Christian scholars see the historical importance of Paul's writings. I was reminded of this last week, when a Jewish author named Amy-Jill Levine (who teaches New Testament and Jewish studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School) was quoted on CNN's Belief Blog: "The best source on the period for Jewish history other than (the first-century historian) Josephus is the New Testament... It's one of those ironies of history that the only Pharisee writing in the Second Temple period from whom we have records is Paul of Tarsus." Paul says he persecuted Christians, threw them in jail and had no problem with people who killed Christians. But then, Paul suddenly became a Christian himself. Paul's conversion is a fact of history. And it makes historians ask, "Why did someone who hated Jesus' followers become a Christian all of a sudden?" When people asked Paul himself, he said it was because he was convinced that he had a real experience of the risen Jesus. He wrote this about in his letters to people living in Corinth, Galatia and Philppi. Paul was originally a skeptic and an enemy of the church--certainly no friend of Jesus. But he put himself in harm's way over and over again just for saying that the resurrection of Jesus was true---that he actually saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Now, let's turn to Aunt Sally's second idea, that the story of the resurrection of Jesus emerged over decades after the crucifixion. But what about this? Early Reports of the Resurrection of Jesus Jesus died in 30 A.D. and most scholars say Paul’s conversion happened about 2 years after that. Critics also believe that 3 years after this, Paul made a special visit to Peter and James, where he discovered an early Christian creed that reports the resurrection of Jesus--something that was around way before the New Testament was even written. In 1st Corinthians 15, scholars believe that Paul quoted an early creed This is how Rabbis would pass on tradition. Creeds are kind of like the lyrics to a song that you can’t get out of your head. They’re a way to preserve and memorize important information. This creed says Jesus appeared to his disciples and others. Here’s the quote Paul used (1 Corinthians 15:3-7): "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." An agnostic historian, Gerd Ludemann, says this creed was being used within 2 years after the crucifixion. In fact, some very well-respected scholars are now saying that the teaching of the Resurrection and the formulation of this creed started in 30 A.D. For example, James D.G. Dunn--one of today’s leading biblical scholars--says the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus and the formulation of this creed began no later than 6 months after Jesus' crucifixion. So it's just not true that the story of Jesus' resurrection emerged over decades after the crucifixion. It wasn't made up by Jewish peasants who missed Jesus and needed a Messiah figure. Paul was a skeptic and an enemy of the church. He didn't miss Jesus one bit. And it certainly didn't help him out emotionally when he was persecuted and jailed for insisting that his testimony was true--that he was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. Not the Stuff of Legend Is the resurrection of Jesus basically the stuff of legend, like Osiris and Isis? Is Jesus just a fictional character in religious mythology? No way. Another agnostic New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, was quoted by The Washington Post last week: "The celebration of Jesus’ death by crucifixion from the very early days of the Christian movement is, odd as it might seem, secure evidence that Jesus in fact really did exist...Those who deny that Jesus ever even existed...typically claim that he was invented by early Christians in imitation of pagan gods and demi-gods who, like Jesus, but before him, were said to have died and risen again. This view is wrong on all scores." For more on this, see Mary Jo Sharp's excellent post: The Jesus Myth Theory How the Story Ends So let me tell you what happened in my conversation with Aunt Sally. Here's how it ended: She said that the story of the resurrection of Jesus probably just emerged over the decades from Jewish peasants with kind of an underdog mentality--maybe people who missed Jesus or needed a Messiah figure. And it helped them feel better emotionally and things like that. We talked about Paul for a bit and she finally ended up saying, “OK. I don’t know what happened...But something happened.” This is where a lot of our skeptical friends and family members may end up. Because I really haven't found a plausible, naturalistic explanation that can account for all of the historical facts in this case. But this event has huge implications, not just for Christians, but for everyone. On Easter Sunday, we're not commemorating the resurrection of John Doe. We're celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And given the context of his life, it seems to say something about who he is and claims that he made. See my post on the claims of Jesus: Did Jesus Say He Was God? The Goal of Religious Studies Aunt Sally was a Religious Studies major. I don't know where she heard some of these things, but I do know that one of the stated goals of her program is to "cultivate understanding of and respect for religious diversity and non-religious perspectives." Reminds me of another quote from Levine, who emphasized mutual respect on CNN's Belief Blog last week: "Speaking personally as a Jew, if I want my neighbors to respect Judaism, which means knowing something about Jewish history, scripture and tradition, I owe my Christian neighbors the same courtesy. It's a matter of respect." As a World Religion professor at a couple of universities, I believe students of religion should do the hard work of fact-finding, seek to understand the source material, and honestly investigate the historical facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection reports with an open mind. As a Christian, I believe every Christian needs to be prepared to talk about the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ---our Living Hope.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1 How Christianity Changed the World Author: Alvin J. Schmidt Paperback: 448 pages Publisher: Zondervan (November 30, 2004) Review #1- In this well-documented volume of over 400 pages, Schmidt marshals the evidence for the transforming power of the Christian faith. He shows how Jesus has the power to transform men, who in turn are able to transform society. And on every level, that is exactly what has happened. Several specific examples can be mentioned. In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women. The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man's wife and children were little more than slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually outnumbered Christian men. Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church's history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity. Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided, however, the institutonalisation of health care began in earnest. For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, "Christian hospitals were the world's first voluntary charitable institutions". Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross. Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions - it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of both sexes. Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavours. As another example of the Christian influence, consider the issue of work and economic life. The Greeks and Romans had a very low view of manual labour, and so it was mainly the slaves and lower classes that were forced to toil with their hands. The non-slave population lived chiefly for personal pleasure. In these early cultures slaves usually greatly outnumbered freemen. Thus there was no such thing as the dignity of labour in these cultures, and economic freedom was only for a select few. The early church changed all this. Jesus of course was a carpenter's son. Paul was a tentmaker. And the early admonition, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" was taken seriously by the early believers. Thus work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful. The idea of labor as a calling, and the idea spoken by Jesus that the laborer is worthy of his wages, revolutionised the workplace. The dignity of labor, the value of hard work, and the sense of vocation, soon changed the surrounding society; the development of a middle class being one of the outcomes. The development of unions is another result. Indeed, the works of Weber and Tawney, among others, records the profound effect the Protestant Reformation has had on work and modern capitalism. Other impacts can be noted. The commandment against stealing of course redefined the concept of private property and property rights. And the protection of workers and workers' rights also flows directly from the biblical worldview. The early unionists were Christians, and concerns for social justice in the workplace and beyond derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Other great achievements might be mentioned. The Western political experience, including genuine democracy at all levels of society, equality, human rights and various freedoms, all stem from the Christian religion, along with its Hebrew forebear. The rise of modern science has been directly linked with the biblical understanding of the world. The many great achievements in art, literature and music also deserve mention. For example, how much poorer would the world be without the Christian artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Brahms, Dante, Milton, Bunyan, and countless others? The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed, there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of this one man. Schmidt deserves an enormous amount of gratitude for this sterling collection of information and inspiration. Christians have made many mistakes. But they have also achieved many great things, all because of the one whom they follow.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1 How Christianity Changed the World Author: Alvin J. Schmidt Paperback: 448 pages Publisher: Zondervan (November 30, 2004) Alvin J. Schmidt (PhD, University of Nebraska) retired in 1999 as professor of sociology at Illinois College in Jacksonville, Illinois, where he still lives. He is the author of several books, including The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West, and served as a consulting editor for Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult. Western civilization is becoming increasingly pluralistic, secularized, and biblically illiterate. Many people today have little sense of how their lives have benefited from Christianity’s influence, often viewing the church with hostility or resentment. How Christianity Changed the World is a topically arranged Christian history for Christians and non- Christians. Grounded in solid research and written in a popular style, this book is both a helpful apologetic tool in talking with unbelievers and a source of evidence for why Christianity deserves credit for many of the humane, social, scientific, and cultural advances in the Western world in the last two thousand years. Photographs, timelines, and charts enhance each chapter. This edition features questions for reflection and discussion for each chapter. Review #2- In this book, Schmidt goes through many different areas of life (education, health care, etc.) and shows how they are a result of Christianity. For example, we would not have universities or higher education without Christianity (esp. monks). Monks are also responsible for the transmission of many (if not all) ancient texts (i.e. Plato and Aristotle among others). In the area of hospitals, Christianity is once again the reason we have them. During Jesus earthly ministry the blind, lame, deaf, crippled, and diseased were brought to Jesus, and he healed them. These miracles were one of the defining features of Jesus ministry, occurring constantly and during his ministry. His apostles also carried on that tradition in the book of Acts, healing many as they spread the gospel message. Christians throughout the ages have carried on this tradition in their own manner, with most not being blessed with the gift of miracle healings. This was done through the introduction and rise of hospitals, which were built by Christians, not the pagans, because they wanted to follow in their Lord’s footsteps in having compassion on the sick, giving whatever support they could to them in their illness. The pre-Christian world had a gaping void when it came to medical aid. I think that this was because of their often fatalistic worldviews. If someone if fated to die, then why should they try to interfere? As Dionysius says, the pagans threw the sick into the streets to die, and treated them with “utter contempt” as they lie dying. In the Roman Empire, the above described behavior was the standard. Even the pagan emperor Julian lamented the lack of medical aid and compassion for the sick and dying, through to the best of my knowledge he did nothing to improve the situation. The Romans tended to view sickness as a sign of weakness, thus they looked down upon those who were sick. I think that something of this attitude can even be seen in the apostles, for when Jesus came to heal a blind man, they questioned him as to whether the blind man or his parents had sinned. They assumed a connection between sin and sickness. If this connection is made, then one would have to conclude that sickness is God’s judgment upon the person who is sick. If this is the case, then if you are trying to help someone get well, you would then be attempting to thwart God’s plan, which was to let hat person suffer or die. Thankfully, early Christians were able to escape from this type of thinking. They saw that each person was redeemable and valuable to God, since we are created in his image. They also did not have the fear of death which preoccupied many pagan cultures. They knew that death in this life only led to better things in the coming life, so they were not afraid to put their health at risk by working with the sick and potentially contracting the sicknesses that they were trying to heal. The first recorded mention of one of these Christians who gave medical aid to the sick is Benjamin of Dijon, who nursed children and infants who had been either been crippled or deformed due to failed abortions or being exposed and left to die by their parents. When we think of medical aid, we usually think of doctor’s offices or hospitals. Strange as it may seem to us, these things did not exist in the ancient world. Given the pagan’s fear of contracting sicknesses, and their fatalistic attitude toward them, they never established hospitals. Christians, however, with their compassion towards the sick and lack of fear towards death, were able to do what the pagans could not. At the council of Nicea it was decreed that Christians should establish a hospice in every city which had a cathedral. The first real hospital was built in 369 by Basil, which housed physicians and nurses in it. A second was built in Fabiola, then a third was built in Rome around 390. These hospitals brought the sick in off of the streets and cared for them. After this, hospitals began to spring up all over Christendom. Chrysostom was instrumental in having them built all over the East, and Augustine did the same in the West. By the 6th century, hospitals were “securely established” in Christendom, and they were ever further established by the Council of Orleans, who passed a canon assuring the protection of hospitals. Hospitals soon began to be a part of monasteries, and many monks worked as nurses. The Crusades, despite the terrible things done during them, also helped to advance the caring for the sick in the East. While the Western knights were fighting in and near Jerusalem, they founded many hospitals, which gave aid to both Christians and Muslims during the wars. As you can see, Christianity played a major role in the development of hospitals and the care for the sick. Whereas pagan cultures possessed worldviews which did not support medical treatment centers, early Christians, with the example of Jesus and his apostles, their lack of fear for death, and their Lord’s command to show kindness to the world, had a perfect worldview to support these hospitals. Contrary to many of the claims of today’s critics, Christianity did make the world a better place. These are just two of the many topics covered by Schmidt, which makes this a very worthwhile book to have. However, there is one major weakness that I see in Schmidt's approach to this subject: he fails to mention that if Christianity had not ruled, something else would have, and there is no real way to know that this other something would not have led to some of the same things that Christianity did. This is why he loses a star and gets dropped to 4.

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1JUNW31B4FZY4&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1JUNW31B4FZY4&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/WHATS-SO-GREAT-ABOUT-CHRISTIANITY/dp/1414326017/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786417&sr=1-1 Not well-known in the UK. What's So Great about Christianity Author: Dinesh D’Souza Paperback: 368 pages Publisher: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. (November 4, 2008) In the fall of 2010 Dinesh D'Souza was named the President of The King's College, a Christian College located in the Empire State Building in New York City. The mission of The King's College is to transform society by educating students so that they are prepared to shape and lead the strategic institutions.D'Souza brings to King's a distinguished 25 year career as a writer, scholar and intellectual. A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D'Souza also served as an Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute as well as a Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.Called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor's Business Daily, D'Souza quickly became a major influence on public policy through his writings. Illiberal Education, his first book publicized the phenomenon of political correctness in America's colleges and universities and was on the best seller list for 15 weeks. Subsequent best sellers, include Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, The Virtue of Prosperity, Finding Values in an Age of Techno Affluence, What's So Great About America, Letters to a Young Conservative and What's So Great About Christianity, and The Roots of Obama's Rage. His latest work, Godforsaken, responds to the problem of evil and will be available March 1, 2012. Review- I found this book to be wonderfully refreshing. We live in a time when books promoting atheism and attacking religion (especially Christianity) are best sellers and promoted nearly everywhere. This book stands up for Christianity, but in an intellectual and systematic way. D'Souza has not provided a book of testimony or a scriptural defense of faith. He spends twenty-four chapters examining the arguments made against religion and answers them using history, philosophy, and careful reasoning. Chapters 25 & 26 are the closest the author comes to promoting Christianity and inviting you to examine its benefits. However, it is hardly an aggressive missionary approach. D'Souza presents the basic material examining Christianity in seven parts (the eight being the last two chapters). The first is "The Future of Christianity". The author lays out the current bump in popularity in militant atheism, but why it is really a long term loser. Despite atheism's best efforts, outside narrow intellectual circles religion is growing in most places in the world. In particular, Christianity is growing the fastest of all and in its future is bright. The second part looks at the historical rise and contributions of Christianity to Western Civilization and again demonstrates that many popular notions are simply wrong or fabrications. The third part looks at science as a wonderful tool and a very poor faith. I particularly loved the chapter correcting the popular notion that Galileo was imprisoned by the Church because the Church was trying to suppress scientific truth. In fact, he was put under house arrest because he published a book he had promised not to publish and insulted the pope in a very egregious way. However, Galileo's scientific truths were being examined by the leading intellects of the day, who were in the Church, and while much was accepted, it did turn out that Galileo was wrong about some details. The fourth part examines the various arguments against the Church because of evolution and natural selection. D'Souza shows the evidence for creation, that evolution per se says nothing against religion or faith, and how what is understood in the natural record comfortably corresponds to religious teaching over the millennia. Yes, all human knowledge has expanded, but the core religious truths have not been overthrown. Part five is an interesting examination of the limits of the reason that the atheists say overthrows faith. D'Souza makes an interesting use of Kant to demonstrate a problem in Hume's thought. We also get treated to an interesting discussion of why miracles are reasonable and the skeptic's wager. That is, if there really is nothing, one hasn't lost much by believing in God and yet if there is a God not believing in him presents a great cost. Part six looks at the notion of suffering as an argument against God and Christianity. The author corrects the notion that religion is responsible for the great mass murders in history and exposes the lame attempts by atheists to try and keep their skirts clean by pushing Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao in the camp of believers. Part seven spends several chapters examining the problem of morality for atheists, despite their great efforts to construct their own morality, the notion of spirit, why so many find unbelief (even a passive unbelief) so appealing, and the problem that evil in the world presents to those who believe in God. I think D'Souza does a good job with each topic. I recommend this book to any Christian of any sect to get great information about the history, power, and strength of your history and faith. No, it is not a replacement for your communion with the Spirit or the nourishment of your faith in the scriptures. However, it will help you deal with the nagging frustrations you feel when you see Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and others on TV or read their words in articles and books. While they are very confident in their faith (and that is exactly what atheism is at its core), most of what they are presenting is testimony rather than fact and sound reasoning. If you are in doubt about choosing between a search for faith or giving up and accepting materialism, I also urge you to read this book, but to also seek to join yourself with a community of believers who can help you on your journey. My faith is strengthened by worshiping and living in faith with others and yours probably will be, too.

http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146256/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2MF3RAF6Z3BJ&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146256/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2MF3RAF6Z3BJ&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146256/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328790220&sr=1-1 The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam Author: Jonathan Riley-Smith Paperback: 136 pages Publisher: Columbia University Press; Reprint edition (May 10, 2011) Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor Emeritus of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge, is the author of nine books, including The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c. 1050--1310; The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174--1277; What Were the Crusades? fourth edition; The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading; The Crusades: A History, second edition; The First Crusaders, 1095--1131; and Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land. ------------------------------------------- The Crusades were penitential war-pilgrimages fought in the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean, as well as in North Africa, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Baltic region, Hungary, the Balkans, and Western Europe. Beginning in the eleventh century and ending as late as the eighteenth, [at the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war. –CSR] these holy wars were waged against Muslims and other enemies of the Church, enlisting generations of laymen and laywomen to fight for the sake of Christendom. Crusading features prominently in today's religio-political hostilities, yet the perceptions of these wars held by Arab nationalists, pan-Islamists, and many in the West have been deeply distorted by the language and imagery of nineteenth-century European imperialism. With this book, Jonathan Riley-Smith returns to the actual story of the Crusades, explaining why and where they were fought and how deeply their narratives and symbolism became embedded in popular Catholic thought and devotional life. From this history, Riley-Smith traces the legacy of the Crusades into modern times, specifically within the attitudes of European imperialists and colonialists and within the beliefs of twentieth-century Muslims. Europeans fashioned an interpretation of the Crusades from the writings of Walter Scott and a French contemporary, Joseph-François Michaud. Scott portrayed Islamic societies as forward-thinking, while casting Christian crusaders as culturally backward and often morally corrupt. Michaud, in contrast, glorified crusading, and his followers used its imagery to illuminate imperial adventures. These depictions have had a profound influence on contemporary Western opinion, as well as on Muslim attitudes toward their past and present. Whether regarded as a valid expression of Christianity's divine enterprise or condemned as a weapon of empire, crusading has been a powerful rhetorical tool for centuries. In order to understand the preoccupations of Islamist jihadis and the character of Western discourse on the Middle East, Riley-Smith argues, we must understand how images of crusading were formed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Review- THEY BORROWED OUR BAD IDEAS Over the last five decades, Jonathan Riley-Smith has revolutionized--or, more appropriately, counter-revolutionized--the historical study of The Crusades by demonstrating that they were not driven by avarice, greed, and imperialism but instead by piety, religious enthusiasm, a sense of duty, and a genuinely fervent desire to liberate the Holy Lands and return them to Christian hands. Moreover, he showed that, far from enriching themselves, the Crusaders suffered real personal expense and hardship in order to pursue what they saw as the will of God in what he refers to as "penitential warfare." From what I've been able to find on-line, it appears that even most who are most reluctant to let the Crusaders and Christianity off the hook have come to accept the validity of his view. In these lectures, Mr. Riley-Smith provides a nice short rehearsal of his basic arguments in this regard. He then moves on to a discussion of how Enlightenment opponents of Christianity, Romantic authors like Sir Walter Scott, and anti-Imperialists of the late 19th century produced the historically warped version of the Crusades that came to be all too widely accepted in the West and that, tragically, was then adopted by Islamic jihadis to fuel hatred of Christendom. In effect, many of the resentments of al Qaeda owe nothing to the actual history of the interaction of Christianity and Islam in the Holy Lands and everything to the misrepresentations of, if not outright lies about, that history that have been propounded in the West. This slender book is a splendid corrective to the malignant view of the Crusades that remains a part of popular culture--like Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven--and a compelling rebuttal to those who claim that "they hate us" because of our own past actions. It's a must read.

http://www.amazon.com/Virgins-What-And-Other-Essays/dp/1616141700/ref=pd_rhf_cr_shvl6http://www.amazon.com/Virgins-What-And-Other-Essays/dp/1616141700/ref=pd_rhf_cr_shvl6 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virgins-What-Other-Essays/dp/1616141700/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334307402&sr=8-1 Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays Author: Ibn Warraq Paperback: 544 pages Publisher: Prometheus Books (April 27, 2010) Ibn Warraq moves from strength to strength, July 29, 2011 By Geoff Puterbaugh (Chiang Mai, T. Suthep, A. Muang Thailand) - See all my reviews "Ibn Warraq" has been one of my favorite authors ever since the publication of his groundbreaking "Why I am not a Muslim" --- especially with his hilarious chapter "Wine, Pigs, and Homosexuality" which spelled out for the world what Muslims really think about these "taboo" things. To summarize, Muslims from Tangier to Teheran blithely ignore the supposed taboos on wine and homosexuality, but they actually take the prohibition against pork seriously. I could only nod my head as I read this chapter, because I have spent years living in Tunisia and Iran. In Tunisia, while I was there, the country was almost completely Francophone, so of course the sidewalk cafes sold beer, wine, and other liquors openly. Gay cruising in the evenings was simply a fact of life, with the young men wearing sprigs of jasmine behind their ears. In Iran, getting blind drunk on vodka was a weekend ritual (not to mention toking up on opium), and the gay cruising scene was just as intense. However, both countries got very serious about pork! Go figure! The new book contains startling information about the origins of the Koran, especially in the idea that much of the Koran may simply have been imported from Syriac-speaking Christianity. (See Luxenberg's The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran for the details. And note that "Luxenberg" is a pen-name, designed to preserve the author's life. All of this jibes rather well with the Iranian rumor that Muhammad spent the first forty years of his life as a Nestorian monk.) Another ground-breaking book to consult is The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died In any case, genuine research into the real origins of the Koran has just begun, and I guess it is not necessary to say that absolutely none of this research is being done in Muslim countries. The title essay, by the way, puts an enormous question-mark under the idea that Islamic martyrs are going to have a wild time with 72 virgins. The word "virgins" has probably been mis-translated by generations of ignorant mullahs, and actually refers to "grapes" or "raisins." An invaluable contribution by one of our literary heroes.

http://www.amazon.com/Sharia-versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=IONZ6RIPJ852L&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/Sharia-versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=IONZ6RIPJ852L&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sharia-Versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3MPJHC21EV648&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=ILESVQYIBZOMH&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW The mainstream media doesn't get it --- this book does March 27, 2005 By CB Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase I'm an expatriate American. My wife and I live in a Muslim neighborhood in the southern part of Thailand. We ourselves have never experienced a scintilla of censure or even tension from our Muslim neighbors -- among whom we shop and with whom we interact every day, on the friendliest of terms.But from our house we can hear the daily sermons broadcast fom the local mosque (in the Thai language --- very few Muslims speak the Arabic of the Q'uran) and what we hear is very disturbing. Local Muslims are told that all of Thailand (which is 75% Bhuddist) should become an Islamic state, and that loyalty to the King and/or Prime Minister is disloyaly to Allah. This does not happen every day --- but it happens too often to ignore.After the tsunami we found that several Muslim groups had used the disaster to evict Bhuddist beach vendors, preventing them from rebuilding their businesses. The Muslims are organized around and encouraged by firebrands from the mosque --- the Bhuddists have no such support organization, so are easy prey.I have read nearly all of Robert Spencer's books and articles. I have followed his detailed arguments online with Muslim scholars --- he is clear, reasoned, and precise. His books are more understated and balanced than his websites, which are ardent --- sometimes strident. Overall, his writings have encouraged me to do a little research of my own -- and I believe he knows what he is talking about. Read this book if you want to know what kind of future Islam has in mind for your children. 5.0 out of 5 stars Support from both sides, December 11, 2007 By Frank Nicodem (Fort Mill, SC United States) - See all my reviews(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Hardcover) I've taken the time to read through all 45 (at this time) reviews of this book, and I discovered something quite fascinating. In essence, the vast majority of the reviewers all provide support for this book -- and I'm not just referring to the "5-star" reviews, but the "1-star, what an idiot" reviews, as well.If you carefully read through the responses to this book, you'll note that almost all of the well-written, well-communicated reviews -- most from obviously learned individuals -- give high praise to the book. And the 1-star reviewers' comments quite often are a) much shorter, b) blast away mindlessly, with little support, and c) often have little more to say than "Oh yeah? Well, you're stupid!"And I consider both of these to be quite insightful -- and very much in synch. (Kind of like listening to a calm, erudite, well-versed, well-spoken scientist explaining his disbelief in UFOs and alien landings, then hearing redneck Bubba talk about when "me and Ethel was just standin' out in the yard when this huge spaceship came and picked us right up off our feet", if you see my point.) To me, that's not a "one for, one against"; it's a "two for".One reviewer even had the lack of understanding to comment on how "tolerant" Islam was, because "look at all the Muslims living in America". They can dress however they want, go to schools with the American children, work in American businesses, etc. Doesn't that show how tolerant Muslims are? (No, fool; it shows how tolerant AMERICANS are. To actually support your point, let's ask the question about whether Americans living in predominantly-Muslim countries can wear what they want, live as they want, believe what they want, etc. Women, try deplaning at the airport in Tehran in shorts and a T-shirt!)Also, note how many of those issuing diatribes against the book, do so against the author himself -- when he is really not much more than the compiler of the information! Another case of a clear inability to comprehend the message.Other critics have tried to use the "Yeah, but..." rebuttal, pointing out that other religions (the usual example is Christianity) have had their periods of intolerance -- to the point of death -- as well. When I was little, my grandmother used to ask "If someone else does something wrong, does that make it right for you?"As a Christian, I DETEST those clearly-unChristian activities throughout history. There is nothing that can be said to excuse them away. They are ungodly, and certanly not representative of true Christianity. However, I would certainly not try to use anyone else's mistakes as support for my own!This book -- and the author's other books -- makes one thing clear: there is a dangerous movement in the world (and coming soon to a city near you!) that is bringing a religion of intolerance and violence into our everyday lives. Examine it carefully, and be better prepared.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=ILESVQYIBZOMH&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW The legacy of dhimmitude April 11, 2005 By Alyssa A. LappenTOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE Format:Hardcover "A thing without a name escapes understanding," warns preeminent Islamic scholar Bat Ye'or of jihad and dhimmitude-the Islamic institutions of, respectively, war and perpetual servitude imposed on conquered non-Muslim peoples. Both, Ye'or notes in an essay entitled "Historical Amnesia," are in the process of globalization.This is not the benign economic globalization that most Westerners laud. Islamic jihad and dhimmitude trade in every available means-military, political, technological and intellectual. And if the towering collection of 63 essays (including Ye'or's) contained in this new book is to be believed, these specific Islamic processes are globalizing at a disturbingly rapid pace. The book, courageously assembled by Robert Spencer, provides historical and contemporary profiles of jihad and dhimmitude.In six sections, the book delineates how Islamic ideology has affected non-Muslims both historically and in the contemporary world. The first three sections cover the myth vs. historical realities and Islamic law and practice regarding non-Muslims. The last three sections cover how the myth of Islamic tolerance has affected contemporary geopolitics, power politics at the United Nations and, finally, academic and public discourse. It is Ibn Warraq's forward and the latter 400 pages in which this book really shines. He explains:Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects; the life of its followers without qualification; and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any way. And I mean Islam, I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and 'Islamic fundamentalism' or Islamic terrorism'.The September 11, 2001 murderers acted canonically. They followed Sharia, a collection of theoretical laws and ideals "that apply in any ideal Muslim community." This body of regulations, based on divine authority, according to devout Muslims "must be accepted without criticism, without doubts and questions." It sacrifices the individual's desires and good to those of the community.That apostasy is not today mentioned in the legal codes of most Islamic countries, Warraq notes, hardly implies freedom of religion for Muslims in those states; their penal codes are filled with Islamic laws. The myth of Islamic tolerance is defied by the massacre and extermination of the Zoroastrians in Iran; the million Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; the more than six thousand Jews in Fez, Morocco, in 1033; hundreds of Jews killed in Cordoba between 1010 and 1013; the entire Jewish community of Granada in 1066; the Jews in Marrakesh in 1232; the Jews of Tetuan, Morocco in 1790; the Jews of Baghdad in 1828; and so on ad nauseum.Ironically, despite Islam's immutability, the myth evolved through the Western propensity to criticize its civilization. In 98 CE, Roman historian Tacitus in Germania compared the noble simplicity of the Germans with the vices of contemporary Rome. Michele do Montaigne (1533-1592) in circa 1580 painted noble savages based on dubious secondhand information in order to condemn his own civilization.Later writers substituted Islam for savages to condemn Christendom and materialism. In 1686-89, for example, Huguenot pastor Pierre Jurieu exclaimed that Christians had spilt more blood on St. Bartholemew's Day than had the Saracens in all their persecutions of Christians. Of course, Islam had claimed millions of lives-in 1399, Taimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. But during the 17th century, and later the Enlightenment, writers perpetuated the "two ideal prototypes, the noble savage and the wise and urbane Oriental," substituting Turks for Muslims, and Islamic tolerance for Turkish tolerance.Actually, 18th century Turkey was no interfaith utopia. In 1758, a British ambassador noted that Sultan Mustafa III had non-Muslim Christians and Jews executed for wearing banned clothing. In 1770, another ambassador reported that Greeks, Armenians and Jews seen outside their homes after dark were hanged. In 1785, a third noted that Muslim mobs had dismantled churches after Christians had secretly repaired them."The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam," Bernard Lewis wrote in 1968 in the Encyclopedia of Islam. "The myth was invented in 19th century Europe as a reproach to Christians-and taken up by Muslims in our own time as a reproach to Jews...."Until the late 19th century, Jews in North Africa, Yemen and other oriental Muslim lands, were obliged to live isolated, in special quarters, and "were constrained to wear distinctive clothing." They could not carry arms (including canes), and could not give sworn testimony in Muslim jurisdictions. Even in 1968, an Egyptian sheikh explained at Cairo's Islamic University of al-Azhar, "the Jews... are dhimmis, people of obligation, who have betrayed the covenant in conformity with which they have been accorded protection."The International Institute of Islamic Thought was established in 1981 to Islamify Western history and thought. Western thinkers succumb to jihad and dhimmitude when we refuse to identify the Turkish perpetration of Armenian genocide, or (conversely) present Andalusia-complete with harems, eunuchs, and Christian slaves-"as a perfect model of multicultural societies for the West" to emulate in the 21st century.Only testimony can counter the pathological trends. Thus, Walid Phares and Bat Ye'or tackle the forgotten tragedy of the Middle Eastern Christians-10 to 12 million Egyptian Copts; 1.5 Lebanese Maronites, Orthodox, Melkites and others; 7 million Anglican, Protestant and Catholic southern Sudanese Africans; 1 million Christian Syrians; 1 million Iraqi Assyrians, Nestorians, Chaldeans, and Jacobites; 500,000 Iranian Persian, Armenian and Assyrian Christians; and perhaps 100,000 Christian Arab Palestinians. Patrick Sookhdeo and Mark Durie cover the rise of anti-Christian persecutions in Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia since Sept. 11, 2001.Western failure to recognize this subservient condition, much less its historical or contemporary results, has put democratic civilization in danger. All this and much more in this book can help to turn the tide.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3JOB9LS6OQFB&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW 5.0 out of 5 stars The Truth can Hurt if you are a Muslim or on the far left, January 7, 2009 By Michael Fortner (Oklahoma) - See all my reviews(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Legacy Of Jihad: Islamic Holy War And The Fate Of Non-muslims (Hardcover) Knowing one's history is important. The sources he includes are original sources, such as documents on Jihad written by Muslims! He includes these to prove that Jihad was promoted throughout history as warfare against unbelievers, not merely an inner struggle as modern western Muslims try to claim. The book is also highly academic and factual, compiled to counter the false idea pushed by the liberal left that Islam is actually a religion of peace, when history shows it to be a religion of war. The difference between the history of other religions and Islam is that other religions do not have warfare and murdering of unbelievers encoded in their doctrines of faith, whereas Islam does. So when modern times arrived with people becoming more educated they were able to cease the distortion of their religion and go back to its origins which are peaceful, but the origins of Islam is kiling and selling the women and children into slavery, which Muhammad himself did to his enemies. This is why the truth of the past must be told, because those who do not know history will live it again. One of the most fascinating books that I have ever read, November 24, 2008 By Kurt A. Johnson (North-Central Illinois, USA) - See all my reviews(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)(VINE VOICE)(TOP 100 REVIEWER)(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Paperback) The politically correct demand that we all recognize Islam as a "religion of peace" has a strangely surreal feel to it. In this book, we find out why that is. This book is a large and in-depth collection of articles on Jihad and the Islamic ways of war and peace. Drawing from many source, Islamic and Western, historical and modern, theoretical and actual eyewitness, the articles show just what Jihad means, both to those who wage it, and those upon whom it is waged.I must say, this is one of the most fascinating books that I have ever read. The many articles are wonderfully eye-opening, and I found the book to be a great answer to the fuzzy-minded look at Islam that is portrayed within the Western media. If you want to really understand Islam and Jihad, and not just listen to half-baked and ill-informed talking heads (Left, Right, or whatever), then get this book. If there is one book that I would say that you must read, it is this book. I give it my highest recommendations. Comprehensive, treatment of military Jihad and it's relationship to slavery September 18, 2006 By Donald N. Anderson Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase This book is a very comprehensive treatment of the unique Islamic phenomena of Jihad (often called the 6th pillar of Islam). The book is very heavily footnoted and will be a guide for scholars for many years.It is clear that although there is a personal dimension to Jihad, the portion emphasizing violent raiding, war, and subjection of other people has been a major activity of Muslims since the 620's and continues today. Any description of Islam as the religion of peace only refers to relations between Muslims. (Even there it has seldom been peaceful). As for a Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and any other "non-believers" it has been an unending source of forced conversion, murder, rape, genocide, and slavery.Even before an areas occupation and rule by Muslims, raids for booty and slaves might be an annual occurrence. In the area of Afghanistan-Pakistan-India these raids depopulated areas, destroyed the culture, and impoverished the survivors for a period of 500 years. The Muslins then took over and governed much of the area for another 500 years. The intense hate between Hindus and Muslims has very long roots and ample justification.The area now dominated by Islam was once over 90% Christian and Zoroastrian, now these two faiths comprise about 1% of the population in that area. How did that happen? Bostom and the other authors provide the answer and it sure wasn't preaching, convincing and converting.In addition to major sections by Bostom there are sections by 20 other major contributors and historical writings by a number of Muslim writers making up 40 separate sections. A number of items are translated into English for the first time in this book.I heartily recommend this book to anyone who has any doubts about the motivations of the Islamic Jihadists we now face.It is apparent that the usual descriptions of the Western Crusades into the Holy land as violent, cruel and bloody may be accurate, but they were of such trivial magnitude as to be described as mere pinpricks against the long tide of bloody conquest and enslavement that has been Islamic Jihad.It took me at least 4 times as long to read as the usual non-fiction, but I consider it to be one of the most essential in the long list of books one must read to become familiar with Islam.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECVhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3JOB9LS6OQFB&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW Startlingly complete August 24, 2005 By Alyssa A. LappenTOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase The politically correct would have it that Islam is a religion of peace, but in this far-ranging collection of Muslim and non-Muslim eyewitness accounts, theological treatises by great Muslim scholars and jurists throughout history and historical surveys of superb historians, Islam has in fact practiced a grisly jihad campaign against non-Muslims from its earliest days, in the hope of satisfying the Prophet Mohammed's end goal---forcing the "one true faith" upon the entire world.In 759 pages, divided into eight parts, Dr. Andrew Bostom has provided a fantastic compendium of historical surveys; jihad literature; classical Muslim scholarly treatises; historical overviews from important 20th century historians; foldout, color-coded maps; eyewitness accounts of jihad campaigns from the Near East, Asia Minor, Europe and the Indian subcontinent; historical and contemporary accounts of jihad slavery; and Muslim and non-Muslim chronicles and eyewitness accounts of jihad campaigns.It is hard, after viewing these compelling accounts and histories, to continue to believe that radical Islamists are in fact all that radical. For Islam, at its core, seems to be a faith bent upon the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.In part two, Bostom collects many jihadist teachings in the Qur'an, for example, Qur'an chapter 9, verse 29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." These teachings fill all of two pages in the text.But Bostom does not stop there. The third chapter is devoted to classical and modern teachings of Qur'anic commentators on Chapter 9, verse 29. Al-Suyuti (d. 1505 CE), for example, writes "Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g. Wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians] until they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (l'an yadinl) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam's rule."Also commenting on the Qur'anic chapter 9, verse 29 are al-Zamakshari (d. 1144), al Tabari (d. 923), al-Beidawi (d. 1286), Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) and al-Azhar, al-Muntakhab Fii Tafsir al-Qur'aan al-Kariim, 1985. Let no one say that Bostom has taken these teachings out of context, for the classical and contemporary commentators interpret the passage in precisely the same way as it appears.Chapter 4 is then devoted to jihad in the Hadith, with commentary from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.Part 3 presents the classical writings of Muslim theologians and jurists on jihad. This 110-page section spans the entire history of Islam, beginning with commentators from the 8th century and continuing through the 20th century. Bostom has gleaned writings of Malik B. Anas (d. 795) from the Muwata, as well as a 1915 Ottoman Fatwa.He also includes several works translated into English for the first time. For example, Ibn Qudama (d. 1223), writes, "Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted." Almost everywhere in this text, the author is belligerent. "It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them with mangonels [an engine that hurls missiles] and to attack them without declaring battle (du'a)."Similarly, the renowned Sufi master al-Ghazali (d. 1111) writes (now in English for the first time), "One must go on jihad (i.e. Warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year... one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and drown them." The marriages of slaves, al-Ghazali continues, are automatically "revoked. One may cut down their trees.... One must destroy their useless books." This belies the notion that Sufism is peaceful.Al-Hilli (d. 1277) appears for the first time in English on the traditions concerning the tax on certain infidels, who have not been enslaved or murdered. And the Persian scholar Muhammad al-Amili (d. 1621) has been translated from Farsi concerning Jihad holy war: "Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax."The 117-page Part 4 includes overviews of Jihad by important 20th century scholars, including Edmond Fagnan, on jihad according to the Malikite school, Roger Arnaldez on the holy war according to Ibn Hazm of Cordova, Clement Huart on the law of war, Nicolas P. Agnides, on the classification of persons under Islamic law and John Ralph Willis on the jihad ideology of enslavement.As Ibn Warraq notes in the forward to this monumental study of Islamic jurisprudence and prosecution of war, Dr. Bostom (a non-specialist from the field of clinical medicine) is the first scholar to have had translated from Arabic into English the works of al-Bayadawi, al-Suyuti, al-Zamakhshari and al-Tabari, as well as works by Sufi master al-Ghazali, Shiites al-Hilli and al-Amili. He also includes representatives from the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence-Averroes and Ibn Khaldun (Maliki), Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Qudama (Hanbali), Shaybani (Hanafi), and al-Mawardi (Shaafi).Ibn Warraq continues: Some contend that Dr. Bostom is right to expose history hitherto denied, but this was not the right historical moment to do so. But, as Isaiah Berlin once noted, from the ideologue's willingness to suppress what he suspects to be true has flowed much evil.--Alyssa A. Lappen

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161017061X?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=161017061http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161017061X?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=161017061 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335260725&sr=8-1 Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins Author: Robert Spencer Publisher: Intercollegiate Studies Institute; 1 edition (April 23, 2012) Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed? Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Many who hear about my new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins ask why it would matter whether or not Muhammad existed -- after all, a billion Muslims believe he did, and they are not going to stop doing so because of some historical investigations. Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene. These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam: No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date. The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors "Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims." The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of "Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific. The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century. We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also. In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death. The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him. How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him? Every empire of the day had a civic religion. The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian. Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian. The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests. It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state. Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Stories about Muhammad began to circulate. A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive expansionism. To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond criticism. This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion. Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers. Allah says in the Qur'an: "As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56). Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29). There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it. Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate. This is not just academic speculation. The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam. There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom. Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds. If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change. But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Tolerance-Pluralism-Diversity/dp/0830827870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796204&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Tolerance-Pluralism-Diversity/dp/0830827870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796204&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-about-Tolerance-Pluralism-Diversity/dp/0830827870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796787&sr=1-1 The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars Author: Brad Stetson and Joseph G. Conti Paperback: 207 pages Publisher: IVP Academic; Print On Demand Edition edition (February 28, 2005) Brad Stetson (Ph.D., University of Southern California) has written widely on social and political topics. His previous books include The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture (1996) and Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism (1998). He is a coauthor of Challenging the Civil Rights Establishment (with Joseph G. Conti, Praeger Publishers, 1993) and Black and Right (with Joseph G. Conti and Stan Faryna, Praeger Publishers, 1997). Stetson's articles have appeared in Christianity Today, First Things, The Los Angeles Times and several other periodicals. He currently lectures in American politics at Azusa Pacific University and in rhetoric at Chapman University. Joseph G. Conti earned a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics at the University of Southern California. A lecturer in religious studies at California State University--Fullerton, he has also taught at the University of Southern California, Kansas City Community College (Kansas), Longwood Community College (Kansas), Western Missouri State University, the University of San Francisco and California State University--Long Beach. He is also a coauthor of Challenging the Civil Rights Establishment (with Brad Stetson, Praeger Publishers, 1993) and Black and Right (with Brad Stetson and Stan Faryna, Praeger Publishers, 1997). We all want to be tolerant. No one wants to be intolerant. But does that mean we have to accept all truth claims as true? Does this virtue rule out having any strongly held moral convictions? In this book Brad Stetson and Joseph G. Conti explore the use and misuse of this important value in academic circles and popular media. They note that the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of tolerance are often taken to be mutually exclusive, and it ends with truth having to give way to tolerance. Stetson and Conti argue just the opposite: that true tolerance requires the pursuit of truth. In the end they demonstrate that Christian conviction about religious truth provides the only secure basis for a tolerant society which promotes truth seeking. Christians can contribute to civil debate without compromising their moral and spiritual convictions. Review- The new tolerance is not worth toleratingThis book is about how a good concept - tolerance - has been redefined and subverted by the secular left. Tolerance, properly understood, is a useful personal and social good. But stripped of its original meaning, it has become a weapon in the culture wars. Tolerance originally meant being able to respect a person while disagreeing with their ideas, beliefs or behaviors. Today it has come to mean accepting what your opponent says, believes or does. If someone today objects to something like abortion on demand or same-sex marriage, he or she is labeled as intolerant, bigoted and narrow-minded. Thus any person who now expresses an opinion or makes a moral critique which does not fit in with our politically correct culture is deemed to have committed the gravest of sins: being intolerant. But as the authors show, the ability to exercise moral discernment and make critical evaluations is at the heart of genuine democracy and the social good. By demanding conformity to the values regime of the secular left, the goal posts in value making have been shifted. The authors show that the new tolerance is closely aligned with moral relativism and the postmodern distrust of truth. But without true truth and moral absolutes, the entire concept of tolerance becomes meaningless. We can only tolerate something if we do not agree with it in the first place. We do not tolerate something we like or agree with. But if there is no absolute truth, and moral values are simple subjective preferences, then convictions and beliefs become mere preferences and tastes. No one needs to tolerate another person's preference for chocolate ice cream. No one needs to tolerate another person's taste for classical music. If all beliefs and moral claims are mere matters of choice and preference, then tolerance no longer is necessary. If we accept the postmodern belief that all truth is self-created, then no one has a right to challenge any belief, or make any moral judgment. In which case, we have nothing left to be tolerant of. Indeed, as the authors point out, the "belief in truth as subjectivity short-circuits discussion" and makes genuine social interaction impossible. Tolerance only functions in a setting where real dialogue, debate and intellectual sparring is allowed to take place. The authors show that the secular left has used the notion of tolerance to push their own agenda. The new relativists argue that believers who insist on moral values are being intolerant and exclusive, yet they demand a whole set of their own moral absolutes, be it the right to abortion, complete choice in all matters sexual, and so on. Thus in their appeal to moral relativism to silence the so-called religious right, they make their own appeal to fundamental moral values: tolerance, neutrality, pluralism, etc. They want to have their cake (there are no moral absolutes) and eat it too (their moral values should be absolutely adhered to). Moreover, tolerance itself is not an absolute There are some things that we should not tolerate. It is neither tolerant nor civil to stand by while a woman is raped or some crime is being committed. True tolerance means the making of moral judgments and sound evaluations. The authors conclude by reminding us that the secular left has high-jacked the concept of tolerance to promote its own ideological agenda. They seek not just to separate church from state, but religion from society. In the process, they are imposing their own secular values on the rest of society, all in the name of tolerance. But as the authors document, often the most intolerant people today are those who shout loudest for tolerance. True tolerance is a virtue and should be practiced, both privately and publicly. But as the authors make clear, a new type of tolerance - really an imposter - has subverted it, taking its place. The new tolerance is no tolerance at all, but a new form of totalitarianism. And we should not be tolerant of that.

http://www.amazon.com/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334306091&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334306091&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334307608&sr=1-1 Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future Author John Kenneth Press Paperback: 352 pages Publisher: Social Books (September 27, 2007) Culturism Described, October 10, 2007 By John K. Press "Culturism Author www.culturism.us" (New York) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) Culturism (c'l-chì'r-'zì-'m) n. 1. A philosophy which holds that majority cultures have the right to define and defend themselves. 2. The philosophy, science and art of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. The study of culturism. Culturism is a political philosophy, art and science based upon the understanding that cultural diversity is real and important. Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam does not. Western culture is based on individuals applying their intelligence towards progressive and productive ends. Other cultures value tradition, festivals and large families. Culturism does not hold that any culture is better or worse than any other. It does hold that all cultures, be they Islamic, Asian, Western, African, Latin American or other, have a right to define and defend themselves. All cultures have a right to implement culturist policies. Western culturists hold that Western countries also have a right and responsibility to implement culturist measures designed to perpetuate our unique and valuable cultural vision. The book culturism starts by showing that the U.S. has a long tradition of culturism. Culturist dynamics in world history are then explored. The chapter on anthropology shows just how wide diversity is and what we can expect to naturally emerge if we do not practice culturism. When we realize how disgusting and broad diversity has been and is we are finally ready to move on to the chapter in which we define Western culture. The excursion into natural sciences shows that culture has unique functions in primates like man. Furthermore, group survival and boundaries preceding us demonstrate that culturism is not just a figment of man's imagination. The chapter on culturist psychology applies the dynamics we discovered in nature to man and helps us know who we are and what we need to do. The last chapters try to pull Western philosophy back into its traditional culturist mode, compare culturism to multiculturalism, and suggest culturist policies. Overall, the book shows that culturism is a real and important dynamic in our world. It argues that Western nations need to be as culturist as other nations. Finally, it argues that we can start in that direction immediately by identifying ourselves as culturists! Culturism vs Multiculturism, February 2, 2008 By Anthony Alexander - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) When I first read of the idea of Culturism, it struck me like a bolt of lightning. Of course, everything made sense, here was a word and a concept "Culturism" I had been struggling to define whenever my thoughts turned to multiculturalism. "Multiculturalism robs us of the authority to protect our culture" As I read brief passages from each chapter of the book, I couldn't help but keep repeating to myself, "of course, of course of course" it just all made perfect sense. JKP's book concerns itself to culturism in America but it's concepts can be applied universally. Within the context of America, JKP identifies the origins of American Culturism as emerging from the Puritan ethic. The first section on the Puritan ethic was a new concept to me. Reading this section wasn't so much an "of course" experience as much as a steep learning curve It is an aspect of American history that I have not much familiarity. The Puritan theme is used to tie together the notion of Culturism and American culture. JKP explains the ideas that gave birth to multiculturalism in anthropology. Margaret Mead has a lot to answer for. So what is JKP getting at? Nothing less than the need to understand that our culture, are values are not self - evident as they may appear to us and especially not to other cultures. It is JKP's message that our culture needs to be defended if it is to survive. Most significant is the western notion of Justice. JKP uses many examples of practices of other cultures to drive home the point that there is no room in our culture for multiculturalism when multiculturalism threatens the values that we take for granted. The false notion that we have accepted in that all cultures are equal. JKP points out the myth of the noble savage, invented by Rousseau. This myth has developed to include the belief that indigenous cultures were caretakers of their environment whilst immigrant cultures destroyed and pillaged the environment. Very much the same ideas are in the book The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery. So the subtle message which JKP presents very gently, in a restrained voice is that western culture is under threat from Islamic culture. The call to Culturism is to awaken us to the very qualities that make our culture unique and worthy of protecting. If we do not protect our culture then we will inevitably lose what we cherish.

http://www.theocca.org/ http://www.theocca.org/course-overview

http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do/rzim-oxford-summer-school-2012-imageo-deo-dignified-degraded-or-redeemedhttp://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do/rzim-oxford-summer-school-2012-imageo-deo-dignified-degraded-or-redeemed

http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87 • 5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask: An Investigation in a Theological Safe Space A series of seminars @ The American Bible Society, New York City, USA • These lectures represent a critical-evangelical (trust in faith but think things through anyway) response to the claims that the Bible is not true because it is historically suspect. The term inerrancy (an awkward claim when we have no autographs of the Bible) has enslaved us to defend a word rather than the true meaning of faith - Can we trust the Bible? Can truth be transmitted only through records of historical fact? Or like the natural sciences, have truth claims always been also expressed through parables, sagas, myths, stories and models of reality? If the Christian faith is based on the trustworthiness of the Bible, then the veracity and integrity of the Biblical message must withstand the challenges of thoughtful skepticism. We will examine 5 questions we ought to feel comfortable asking without being either shouted down by the anxious faithful or despised by the misinformed skeptic. • Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources) • Have you ever wondered where the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the 80 books of the Catholic Bible come from? Who wrote them and why did they do so? How did they know what to write? Are the written texts identical to the oral traditions? This is a survey of the various sources from which the Christian scriptures arose. This lecture  also introduces the important issues that ultimately lead to an assessment on why anyone holds the view that the Bible ought to be or ought not to be trusted. It is easy to make an unexamined decision to believe in something but far more satisfying to know why one does so. We hope this series of lectures will initiate your own quest. • Outline of Lecture 1 • 1. The Oral Traditions to the Modern Bibles  (Roman, Protestant, Ethiopic, Syriac, Orthodox…). Who wrote them and why did they do so? How did they know what to write? Are the written texts identical to the oral traditions? • 2. Old Testament: • a. The Origins of the Hebrew Bible (HB)  • b. Early Jewish Scriptures, Types of HB • i. 22-book canon (Josephus, AD 37-100 & Jubilees 2:23-24)  • ii. 24-book canon (4 Ezra 14:22-49, 2nd century AD & the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate baraita, BavaBatra 14B-15A, AD 70-200)  • iii. 23-book canon (David Noel Freedman’s thesis excludes Daniel, c. 5th century BC)  • iv. Rabbinic Tradition (AD 90-550)  • d. Jesus’ Scriptures & Early Christianity  • e. The Masoretic Text (MT)  • f. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) • 3. New Testament • a. From Story to Scripture, from Scripture to Canon  • b. Influence of the ‘Heretics’  • c. Books, Texts & Translations  • d. Collection & Citation of Christian Scriptures  • i. Marcion • ii. Eusebius  • iii. Muratorian Canons  • iv. The Greek New Testament (GNT) Codex  • e. The Septuagint (LXX) in the New Testament • 4. Extra-Canonical Sources • a. Inter-Testamental Source  • b. Apocryphal Sources (OT)  • c. Pseudipagraphical Sources (OT & NT)  • d. Gnostic sources • 5. When did the Bibles become our Bible? • a. Athanasius, AD367  • b. Council of Africa  • c. Martin Luther  • d. Council of Trent 1547  • e. Modern Translations and Versions

http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87 • Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria) • How did the books of the Bible get to be ‘canonized?’ Who chose them and by what authority do we accept their choice? What were the tests conducted to assess the suitability of God’s Word in human words? This is the story of how our Bible came to be. • Outline of Lecture 2   • 1. When did the Bibles become our Bible? • a. Old Testament (OT): AD 6th century   • b. New Testament (NT): AD 4th-16th century    • 2. Criteria of Canonicity: • a. Ancient Criteria of Authoritative Canonicity   • b. Modern Tests of Reliability    • 3. Inerrancy & Inspiration or Trustworthiness & Authority? • 4. The Early Church & the OT • a. The Hebrew Scripture and Jesus, • b. The Torah and Jesus, • c. From Ritual to Spirit    • 5. Jesus as the true Canon • 6. Is the biblical canon THE Word of God or A WORD from God • 7. How to Understand a Word from God in Words of Man • 8. By whose authority were the books selected? • a. Canonical Authorities   • b. Authorities and Loyalties    • 9. Conclusion

http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87 • Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities) • Many writers have written about the lost gospels and lost Christianities, suggesting that the current form survived after a Darwinian struggle for supremacy. How do they know that and is this true? If there were multiple Christianities and more than four gospels, how do we know we inherited the correct ones? What happened to these traditions of Christianity? This is a survey of the other Christian faiths ignored by history. • In recent years, there has been much ink spilled over the issue of orthodoxy. Since the discoveries of ‘lost’ documents of the early churches from 1945, various theories have arisen to suggest that the Bible we have, especially the Gospels that survived in our modern Bibles, were not the only ones. Rather, they were the favorites of the ‘winners’ in the battle for correct theology. Scholars such as Morton Smith, Elaine Pagels, Karen King and Bart Ehrman have written important works claiming that since winners write history, a cloud of suspicion hangs over the form of Christianity that goes by that name today. One of the most vocal thinkers who have responded to them is Darrell Bock. In this seminar, we shall consider the arguments of Ehrman and Bock. We shall then consider a postfoundational approach to the challenges raised by this question - What about the Lost Gospels? • Outline of Lecture 3   • 1. Were There Other Gospels? Bart Ehrman’s Theory • a. Ancient Discovery of a Forgery (Serapion and Gospel of Peter)   • b. Ancient Forgery of a Discovery (Acts of Paul and Thecla)   • c. Discovery of an Ancient Forgery (Gospel of Thomas)   • d. Forgery of an Ancient Discovery (The Secret Gospel of Mark)   • e. Winners and Losers (Can we trust the Winners?)   • 2. Beyond the Four Gospels & Gnosticism - Darrell Bock’s Response • a. Origin of Gnosticism   • b. Diversity in Early Christianity   • c. Historical Judgments   • d. Walter Bauer and the New School   • e. In Defense of Orthodoxy   • 3. Conclusion – Making Sense of the Lost Gospels through a Postfoundational Approach • Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy) • In the history of biblical copying and transmission, scribal errors were made. Was Jesus misquoted as some say? Why should we trust those who are charged with restoring the corrupted texts to its correct state? Did the writers of the Bible write of matters that are no longer relevant in our time? This is the story of the transmission, the appearance of errors and the work of restoring the Bible to its intended state of meaning. • In recent years, critical biblical studies have uncovered many hitherto lost documents showing that the process of biblical transmission is imperfect. This is because we humans are imperfect. The task of recovering corrupted texts became the most important role of biblical theologians. • In BL4 & BL5 seminars, we shall examine what happened and how scientific investigations helped us to understand the true meanings of textual error and inspiration of divine revelation. In the Bible, we have God’s Word in human words, an infallible message transmitted fallibly. How then can we trust the Bible we read? • Outline of Lecture 4 • 1. The Corruption of the Bible • 1.1 The Holy Spirit, The Message & The Messenger  • 1.2 Corruptions In Transmission • 2. The Restoration of the Bible • 2.1 The Restoration of Biblical texts is an Ongoing Process  • 2.2 Methods of Textual Criticism  • 2.3 Rules of Textual Criticism • 3. Is the Bible Inerrant? • 4. So, Can We Believe the Bible? • 4.1 Issues of Accuracy   • 4.2 The Sufficiency of Revelation  • 4.3 The Ultimacy of Testimony

http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87 • Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority) • After all that is said and done about and to the Bible, why do, or why should today’s Christians trust what is written in the Bible? We shall explore some of the challenges directed at the trustworthiness of the Bible. Should the Bible be considered reliable in the context of the 21st century notion of scientific investigation? Is it reasonable to assign authority to a collection of ancient texts of dubious authenticity? This is the story of what it means when we say that the Bible is the inspired Word of God even though humans with emotions, biases, prejudice and flawed rationalities wrote them down. • In recent years, critical biblical studies have uncovered many hitherto lost documents showing that the process of biblical transmission is imperfect. This is because we humans are imperfect. The task of recovering corrupted texts became the most important role of biblical theologians. • In BL4 & BL5 seminars, we shall examine what happened and how scientific investigations helped us to understand the true meanings of textual error and inspiration of divine revelation. In the Bible, we have God’s Word in human words, an infallible message transmitted fallibly. How then can we trust the Bible we read? • Outline of Lecture 5 • 1. Can Human Words Convey a Divine Message? The fallible transmission of an infallible message • 1.1 Is a canonical interpretation different from that of isolated texts?  • 1.2 Is there an Original Text?  • 1.3 Fallible Transmission of an Infallible Message  • 1.4 Why Is The Transmission Of God’s Word Imperfect?   • 1.5 Is There An Infallibility Test?  • 1.6 The Paradox Of Christian Belief • 2. How Were the Scriptures Inspired? Was it the text, the writer, the reader, the events? • 2.1 Inspiration Speaks To The Trustworthiness Of The Biblical Witnesses  • 2.2 The Skeptic And Inspiration  • 2.3 The Believer And Inspiration  • 2.4 Four Types of Inspiration • 3. Divine Diachronic Authority • 3.1 Trust and Authority In The Natural Sciences  • 3.2 Trust and Authority In Theology  • 3.3 Synchronic and Diachronic Authority • 4. So, Can We Trust The Bible? • 4.1 Reliability  • 4.2 Trustworthiness  • 4.3 Is The Bible Reliable And Trustworthy With Textual Variations?

http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/catalog/product/view/id/3558/s/good-question/?utm_source=newsletter214&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UK+February+2012http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/catalog/product/view/id/3558/s/good-question/?utm_source=newsletter214&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UK+February+2012

Christian Apologetics Sourcebook