A recent post on ThinkChristian.net generated some good comments, and I've already commented on the content of the post itself. Below are my replies to one commenter in that thread. (You can see his original comment at the ThinkChristian post above.)

"Atheists don't have any creeds or beliefs or principles other than their common assertion that there is no god. So to say that atheists are behind Nazi Germany or Socialist regimes is a misunderstanding of atheism."

I agree, although we should note that, like any worldview, certain other conclusions (not necessarily the ones you noted above) logically follow from atheism.

"If Christians would look at their own history … They destroyed documents that disagreed with the orthodox position and rewrote their own history …"

Which events are you referring to? There's no doubt that after Christianity became the official Roman religion under Constantine (and mixed with political power) that certain corruptions began to occur. But to insinuate that (prior to this?) a systematic process of corruption occurred is unsupported at best, and proven incorrect via extant manuscript evidence. If you're going to discount the New Testament texts out of hand historically, then you also must discount every other historical text from the same period, since the NT text is the best attested source from that time (in terms of number of extant manuscripts, time gap between events and when they were written, etc). See my ebook for more on this topic: www.whyfaith.com/nt/

"So, to claim that we have the words and ideas of Jesus today is very suspect because we can trace the sources of these ideas to non Christian belief systems."

This is a non-sequitur; just because we find similar beliefs elsewhere does not in any way prove that we don't have the original ideas of Jesus.

"… most destructive idea to come out of the Roman Christian war machine was that Jesus was the only way. This exclusive nature of Christian belief is the source of all the violence done in the name of Jesus"

This is a second non-sequitur; why does the fact that 'Jesus is the only way' necessarily lead to violenece? Certainly it has at times in the past, but if you're going to make that play, you should also be wary of "secular" regimes that have also lead to violence. Besides, claiming that the idea that 'Jesus is the only way' came out of the "Roman Christian war machine" is false; it comes out of the New Testament documents and the earliest Christian writers. (Pre-Constantine.)

"Just because there are ideas in the Bible that are good, doesn't mean that its the only source of those ideas"

That is true. The question is whether it is true or not. Whether Christianity has produced "good results" is a matter that is up for debate; a non-Christian historian like Rodney Stark would argue that it has. But it's not fair, IMHO, to discount an ideology because of the failure of many of its proponents.

Are there ways in which God is like us?
Yes. God loves, hates, plans, creates, thinks, builds, achieves, expresses Himself, takes pleasure in beauty and diversity, is disgusted by cruelty and evil.
God communicates.
God enters into relationships. (Source: Pastor Steve's Beliefs)

In a sense, the author is correct. God, according to the Bible, is and does all of those things. But I think the author is a bit sloppy: He has the direction backwards.

No, God is not like us. We are like God. Not in the New Age sense of being gods or even "god-like", but instead being made in God's image so we reflect a portion (albeit sometimes a tiny portion) of His glory. If we were to say that God is like us, we would be anthropomorphizing God, making Him like us. We should try to think in the right direction (top-down rather than bottom-up) regarding God.

For example, when we refer to God as "Father" we have a tenancy to apply our conceptions of our own father to God … which of course is quite backwards. To use Platonic terms (hopefully correctly) God is the Form, and our fathers are the forms. Or to put it another way, God is the mold, and our own fathers (as wonderful or as miserable as they may be) are the clay, which imperfectly represent facets of the original.

Of course, such similarities of God are marred (but not erased) by sin, which causes us to feel separated but not entirely estranged from our heavenly Father.

Related: How does sin estrange us from God? And what is God's answer to the problem?

Finally completed my update of my essay/eBook The Historical Reliability of the New Testament! My original essay was rather short (due to the prescribed limits of the seminary class assignment for which it was written) however I have greatly expanded the essay (from approximately 3,000 words to over 8,000 words) and included many more details, observations, and citation of important thinkers on many subjects. Therefore, I now feel it's more legitimate to consider it an eBook on its own, although if I ever finish my more comprehensive eBook, this will likely become a single chapter within that larger work. The only entirely new section in this update is "The Copycat Argument", which refutes theories that the New Testament is merely the product of copying other religious myths. (Though I lent out my copy of Strobel's newest, The Case for the Real Jesus, so I may add some material from that book once I get it back.)

If you've read it before, check out the new version! If not, no better time than the present to read it now! (It's got a swanky new cover and everything! :))

You can also use this shorter URL to link to the eBook: http://www.whyfaith.com/nt/

After posting my essay, I realized that there were some areas that should be expanded. There was a word limit on the paper when I originally wrote it so I had to shorten some sections and leave other things out entirely. I'm working on a rewrite to expand its scope and add more detail. When it's done, it'll be released as a PDF instead of HTML, since it's way too time consuming to convert it. (Saving in a PDF: instant. HTML: an hour or more) Also it'll be under a Creative Commons license so hopefully it'll get copied & passed around.

So look for that hopefully soon! I'll probably wait until I receive the copy of Mark D. Roberts' new book Can We Trust the Gospels? I ordered so I can review it before I post the new version of my article. (It's on its way right now from Amazon! :))