I'm trying to get a fair view on christianity...

I'm trying to get a fair view on christianity. I'm trying to understand it but also understand the view of its opponents. Here's the list of books I have right now:

>Religious books
The Bible
Selected Writings of Thomas Aquinas
Silence by Shūsaku Endō
The City of God by Augustine of Hippo

>Atheist books
Works from Hume maybe?
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche


Modern:

The God delusion by Richard Dawkins
The greatest show on earth by Richard Dawkins

God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens
Mortality by Christopher Hitchens
Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens( This one might not be as relevant)


What are the most essential works missing from that list?

Of you want a some modern ones supporting Christianity you could read Feser or McIntyre.

Belief in God in an Age of Science
Confessions
The Consolation of Philosophy
A Life of Jesus
Answer to Job

Any specific books that stand out?

Thanks.

The last superstition is a refutation of the new atheists, so it could be good after reading the new atheists.

Christians are "Followers."
What more is there to think about for more than a second? They are NOT thinkers. They have no original thoughts. They can only regurgitate the same things over and over again: that in 2,000 years has not brought peace or sanity.
And if this isn't enough, look at how many catholic preachers are ped-rapists. Do you really want to follow a bunch of rapists that will "lay their dirty hands on you"?

No, I'm an atheist and will probably always be an atheist.

But whether we like it or not, Christianity has been extremely influential in western civilization for the past two thousand years. I don't seek to convert myself but I am not afraid of words. I wish to test my ideas and attempt to understand what made people believe in this book.

>Nietzsche
>atheist

fundamental misreading.

I know Nietzsche isn't a nihilist despite often being labelled so but I think it's hard to argue that he's a theist.

Beyond Good and evil is also an attack on traditional notions of morality. I think it deserves its place on there.

>Beyond Good and evil is also an attack on traditional notions of morality. I think it deserves its place on there.

Oh, morality and Christianity are the same thing now? Whew, I totally misunderstood.

If I'm not mistaken Christianity makes use of common notions of morality.

I don't know why you're getting all worked up. Nietzsche was clearly a critic of the religion with the whole slave morality thing.

Christianity is the reason those common notions of morality became common.

Sure.

Doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche was a critic of it.

Those athiest works with the exception of Hume are awful and will not give you a fair view. As for hitchens the only work of his that has any value outside of humor would be his atheist reader "The Portable Atheist" which itself only has value because its a compendium of works that aren't his.

Use these -

Miracle of Theism by Mackie

Why I am not a Christian - Bertrand Russel (the book not the radio interview

Cosmos by carl sagan

>Christianity is the reason those common notions of morality became common.

Thanks

I really don't know my way around Hume.

Do you have any recommendation?

Brothers Karamazov

>Do you have any recommendation?

He as small group of essays on it

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
The natural history of Religion
On Miracles

+ there is a section in his treatise on scholasticism by Mackies book does a better job.

I remember that short essays by Luther were really interesting.
Also, Pascal, Provincial letters : very smart and quite funny, aimed at the Jesuits. Pascal quotes several texts from his opponents stating, for instance, that a monk can have anal sex with another, if he gets out before ejaculation. Or that a good Christian can legitimately kill a man if it's necessary for him to take back something that was stolen from him, and which value is at least that of an apple. Anyway - the general point may be a bit thin for 300 pages of theology, but it's a great book.

Instead of simply looking at pro/anti writings, I think it'd be good (maybe better) to look into academic/historical perspectives, which tend to be more level-headed and insightful than polarized bickering. Look into getting an Oxford Annotated Bible, which is a good start.

Plato
Plato
Plato
Plato
Plato

Thank you. Really good recommendations

FUCKING THE REPUBLIC IS RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.

IF THAT'S HOW YOU WERE RECOMMENDING IT, GOOD JOB

THE REPUBLIC IS COMPATIBLE WITH BUDDHISM AND DAOISM AND ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

DEAL.

It's a doorstopper, but A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
By Diarmaid MacCulloch is good.

Also, Religion, by Arthur Schopenhauer

Navarre Bible
Didache Bible
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholicism by Robert Barron
Introduction to Christianity by Josef Ratzinger
Veritatis Splendor
Humanae Vitae

...

Seven Lies About Catholic History
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

are you that annoying tripfag from Veeky Forums? gas yourself

also have you even read any dialogue besides Republic?

>It's a doorstopper, but A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years By Diarmaid MacCulloch is good.

Not OP but I've been looking for a general history in Christianity, this book is rather new and I'm not sure how accepted it is academically.

The works of Anselm of Canterbury

It received the Cundill Prize for promoting academic achievement in history

this is from wikipedia, with both criticism and praise:

Historian Paul Johnson[6] in a review for The Spectator writes that the author "seems anxious to downgrade the importance and uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth in founding the religion which bears his name" and that the "section on Jesus is not much more than 20 pages, and reflects all the most irritating aspects of modern Anglican New Testament criticism." Still, "the source notes are often more interesting than the text, and the bibliography is thorough and up-to-date, the most useful part of the entire work." He writes that "[o]nce the author gets into his story with St Paul and the founding of the church, the narrative becomes more interesting and fruitful. The great strength of the book is that it covers, in sufficient but not oppressive detail, huge areas of Christian history which are dealt with cursorily in traditional accounts of the subject... including the evolution of the early Christian sects, the Eastern Church in its entirety, the rise of Orthodoxy in both the Greek world and Russia" to the present throughout the world. So, "a commendable effort."

Kierkegaard is the bridge between fedora and faith

I'd argue mostly circumstance and social pressure.
Convenience of religion as a societal binding agent.
It offered easy answers in a time of uncertainty.
People aren't naturally "logical" and have to be taught critical thought; if you're told something false is true from a young age by someone you trust, and nobody in your community challenges the idea, chances are you'll keep the belief, especially if it doesn't have much impact on your day to day life.

bump

C.S. Lewis- the Screwtape Letters, the Great Divorce

And mere Christianity

>I wish to test my ideas and attempt to understand what made people believe in this book.
Surely you must be kidding; I mean, it would take a brain dead idiot 5 minutes to come up with a reason why that is so. Quick tip:
>The internet came a bit too late.

You can definitely answer the question on a superficial level see:

But I seek a deeper level of understanding.

unironically this, at least for theology

Start with Plato & Aristotle, then Plotinus & Philo, then Augustine & Aquinas