Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H





A personal God is simply a God who may not be that like a human person but is like us in his compassion and love and desire for a relationship.  He knows things - he is aware.  He is alive.


Nobody really knows what consciousness actually means only what it does.  I am conscious and I still have not a clue.  So how can we know what we mean by a personal God?  God is too different and he may helpfully respond when we are in trouble but that is not like any idea of love or compassion that we understand.


One attraction of a God is who essentially impersonal and a power is that you want him to be a power source you can use like a light switch.  He is not a challenge to you.  Saying this God is personal could be covering up how you don’t really want him to be a person in his own right who is independent of what you want and think.  You want a God without demands.


Christians have an added problem with a personal God - they say he is three persons.


The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity says that there is one God and that God is three persons. The persons are not three Gods but one God. God is not three persons in one person but three persons in one being. The persons are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son became a man. Jesus Christ was God the Son.


Christians teach that God is simple - that is he has no parts but he is real.  They say that God having no composition does not mean there are no distinctions in him so it possible for there to be more than one person in God.  As God is infinite or without limit why are we not told there is an infinity of persons in God?  Why three?  Believers say there could be an infinity but they know there is not - there are only three persons.  The admission gives something away.  Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.  There are an infinite number of rooms.  That means that no matter how many rooms there are there will be rooms available.  Its never complete.  Infinite is not perfect in the sense that it cannot be complete.


One core Bible teaching is that man is made in the image of God.  Christians say that God is one what and three whos or three whos who are one what. Our experience is that we cannot be more than one person and as we are made in the image of God it follows that God cannot really be more than one person.  Even if person is loose with regard to the trinity there is nothing in us that even comes close to it.
God is not described as Father in the Old Testament. Therefore there is no Son in it. And the Holy Spirit is not spoken of there as a person. Attempts have been made to argue that the Trinity was hinted at in the Old Testament but as Gerald Bray admits this cannot be for its an entirely New Testament development (page 141, The Doctrine of God, Gerald Bray, IVP, Illinois, 1993). The New Testament is the gospel so only it reveals the Trinity.

The three are not literal persons according to Christian theology for persons are limited beings and these three are not three beings or limited but are one unlimited being.
Some say the key to realising that the Trinity is not nonsense is realising that the three are not persons as we know them. But this is dishonest for they still say that God is indivisible and undivided and that there are separate relationships within that God. The Trinity doctrine is supposed to indicate that there are relationships in God. That is what it expresses.
If there can be three in God there can be three persons as we know persons in God. If there are three relationships there are three persons in the full sense and that is that. The doctrine of the Trinity leads directly to tritheism in practice because the vast majority of Christians have never heard that God is three “persons” not three persons and they think there are three persons in one person. The fruit of the doctrine has been idolatry and this shows that if the Old Testament doctrine that idolatry is wrong and sinful and God hates it above all things then it follows that the Christian religion was founded by men or satanic powers for the fruits have been godlessness and apostasy and worthless worship.

The Christians say that if they said there were three Gods in one God they would be contradicting themselves. Or if they were to say there were three persons in one person they would be contradicting themselves. They claim that they are only saying there are three persons in one God or being. In other words, God has one nature but he has three centres of consciousness in that one nature. That is to say there is only one What (being) but three Whos (page 367, When Critics Ask). This really means that God as a being is impersonal. God does not describe a who but a what. It contradicts the Bible insistence that God is Father and friend and so on. The claim that there are three persons in that being does not fix this. If electricity is impersonal but a person is made out of it, electricity is still impersonal. If another person is made out of it then you have two persons but only one force. It is like how humans are made of the same stuff but are individuals. The Trinity seems to give us three separate Gods. The elements that make up the universe are impersonal but we are made of these elements. Yet we are the persons and the elements that make us up are not. In practice, Christians treat the being of God as personal and even more important than the three persons - after all without that being the three persons would have no divinity. They worship the being which is impersonal. The persons are only worshipped for being God so it is really God who is being worshipped. So in practice they worship one God but three Gods as well. Its all contradiction and confusion. An impersonal force is honoured above personhood. The Trinity despite being disguised as a dignifying doctrine is not dignifying at all. It does not inspire us. The Christians have lied themselves into a corner with it. The Christians claim to see that there is only one God in the Bible but it seems to speak of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit being three distinct beings. The Bible never actually teaches their distinction between person and being and what and who in relation to God. Their trinity is unbiblical.
Some Christians just stick to the idea of God being one in three and three in one and choose to say no more for saying any more leads to misunderstanding and idolatry. If they are right then the Catholic Church is lying about being infallible for it brought out creeds such as the Nicene Creed which speaks of the three persons in one God in terms of there being one what and three whos. The God of the Catholics would be impersonal meaning that they are idolaters for worshipping him (it would be a more accurate word). The Jesus of the Catholics would be a fake. The First Epistle of John says that whoever has the wrong Jesus is an antichrist. The Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels who proclaimed God Abba or Daddy not some impersonal force.
Does the doctrine of three persons in one God conflict with reason? It is replied that space is length, width and height yet it is one. It is three in one and one in three like the Trinity. But in the Trinity, there necessarily has to be three while space can drop one dimension. Length and width can exist without height. We conclude then that this is no proof that the Trinity doctrine can be true. It is irrelevant.

The Church believes that God has to exist in the same way as 1+1 have to be 2. It says the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit from both to make them the one so the figure three seems necessary.

It is argued that time consists of past, present and future which is exactly like the Trinity for they are one. If time stopped the future would not exist but the past and present would so this is different from the Trinity which says God has to be three.

People are said to be trinities. They are nature, person and personality yet one being. Christians teach that since Genesis says God made man in his own image and likeness that we must be three in one like him. Rubbish. The three: nature, person and personality, can be completely separate and still come together to make a person. A computer is not one being because it has a nature, the power to sense and the power to work. It’s a composite. A being that had consciousness alone and no memory or will would still be a person. The Trinity doctrine denies this so it is only fit for fascists.

Some say the universe is three in one the same as God. It consists of space, matter and time but when all of these things are so mysterious how can anybody say they understand them enough to know that they are three entities in one being?

Do Christians believe in three Gods in one God? They use the analogies we have scrutinised to argue that they do not. But the analogies are not close enough to it to answer no! There is no evidence that the Christians believe in one God and not in three in one. Jesus, the monotheist would have been appalled at the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is held that the Trinity is possible because its mathematics are not 1+1+1=3 but 1x1x1=1. But this is ludicrous simply because each of the multiplied figures is the same figure being multiplied by itself. If this is the mathematics of God then God is one person not three. And if God can’t do a basic sum then he should not be dictating to people that they must believe that he is one in three.
If the Father multiplies himself to make the Son then how could you multiply that which is unlimited and infinite?

The Father is supposed to cause the Son and both cause the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed says, “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God light from Light, true God from true God begotten not made, of one being with the Father and through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from Heaven. He was conceived by the Holy Sprit and born of the Virgin Mary.” This is not 1x1x1=1 but 1 causes another 1 which both cause a further 1. God is a spiritual being that has no composition, he has no parts. Multiplication and addition have only meaning for things that have composition. You cannot multiply something abstract and God is like an abstract. There can be no multiplication or addition within a spiritual nature. Think of it this way. God is by definition the uncaused being. He is uncreated. But in God the Father begets the Son and both project the Holy Spirit! So the Trinity has that which cannot be caused causing the Son and causing the Holy Spirit. It’s all contradiction. For example, the creed pretends that begotten is not the same as being made! If you are begotten you are made. Your father begot you when he made you from his sperm. God the Father is thought to be unbegotten so you have an unbegotten person in God and a begotten one and then they tell you that God is one being!

These debunked arguments have been obtained from fundie, Professor Henry Morris’s dire book, Science and the Bible.

The Trinity dogma insists that God can only be three. He has to be three the same way that 5+5 have to be 10, that is logically. But does God have to be three? God is perfect. If God could do without one person he would not be perfect for what is unnecessary is imperfect. But God is the necessary being and all of his being is necessary. To be perfect involves being needed to exist. If God is a person who does not need to be then God is not the necessary being. God is not God. It is the same if he has a person who is not needed in him. See the inference of the doctrine of the Trinity that proofs for God cannot make sense unless you believe in the Trinity first. But the Old Testament attempts to give evidence for God without starting off with a Triune God. This implies that the Old Testament which at best does not clearly teach the Trinity and at worst denies it offered a God who was not a God for worship and service and sometimes barbaric obedience. It implies that it offered something unprovable though asking it to be treated as provable. If God was good the Trinity would have been clearly revealed from the very start.
Jesus according to the gospels was a true man. The Church says he was God as well. Jesus prayed to God. He would have as far as experience goes have seemed to have been and felt he was a different person from God. Yet he is not a separate person according to the Trinity doctrine. He is more separate than the Father is from the Holy Spirit and still he was the same being as God. If that is possible, then why can't we have three persons in one person? The Trinity doctrine coupled with the idea of Jesus being God means that no matter what kind of division or difference exists it will not be admitted and we must pretend that God can be indivisable and undivided and still divided!
The Trinity doctrine creates so many problems and questions that it would be better scrapped as implausible and ridiculous and irrational.
The Christians teach the absolutely insane idea that people can be made out of, as in from, love. This is madder than saying babies are made of the air you breath out!
Swinburne in Was Jesus God? (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) says that if God was one person and he was not making others exist to interact with him and love him he would be bad (page 28). So Swinburne says that God must be three persons. He says that the Father needs an equal to love and so he causes there to be a person in God, the Son, an equal for him to love (page 28). This is snobbish. It is not true that a person needs to be your equal in order for you to love them. Swinburne says that if there was only the Father and the Son in God this would be selfish. They would be like a husband and wife who adored and served one another but bothered about no one else (page 29). So the Father and the Son cause the Holy Spirit. The thought is that if the Father really loves the Son he will have a third person to love the Son (page 30).
This logic is superficial.
They teach that Father exists of himself and his love for himself is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the Son. It is said that the Holy Spirit is necessary to complete God. If the Father and the Son did not love one another then God would be imperfect. But the Father in loving himself loves the Son and since the Son is the love of the Father by loving himself he loves the Father. The Holy Spirit is superfluous. He is described as the mutual love of the Father and the Son as if he were a glue to bind them together to make them one God. God should not need glue!

According to the Eastern Church, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son but proceeds from the Father alone through the Son. The Holy Spirit is the love of the Father for the Son but not the love of the Son for the Father. When the love of the Father for the Son is a person and the love of the Son for the Father is not then we have a contradiction. We have disunity in God.

If the Father’s love for Son becomes a person then the same must be true of the love of the Son for the Father. That makes four persons in God. The love of the Father for this new person and the love of the son for him make two more persons. And on and on it goes until we find an infinity of persons in God. The Trinity is incoherent. If God is not just one person then there is no limit to the number of persons he is. The Trinity doctrine is an insult to all these people.
The Western Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the Son conveniently forgetting that the love of the Son for the Father is not the love of the Father for the Son. If love has to become a person then there are four persons here. And the love of the Father for one of these persons becomes another person and it goes on and on into a grotesque eternity of one God in an infinity of persons. We would have to be persons in God as well as infinite for infinite means all without limit.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then he is the Son of God the Father and the Son of the Son and also the Grandson of the Father. How silly it all gets.

Only a fool would agree with the Church that the Father’s love of himself becomes the Son. Who does the Son’s self-love become? Who does the Holy Spirit’s self-love become?

To assert that the Father causes the Son and then that the being of God cannot be caused is to contradict oneself.

We are told that if God were not more than one person then he could not be a real and true person because he has nobody to love. He would be an impersonal force or he would be unfulfilled and unhappy and need to make people to love. He would not be God or supreme when he needs something outside himself. But if a person who is doing their homework and not thinking about love is a person then God can be a person too if he is Unitarian, or one person. Love is an act of will. Therefore you can love if there is nobody to love for you would love and are loving the best you can. This does not imply that you are incomplete until you love.
If there are relationships in God then the Father is having a relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is having a relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is having a relationship with the Father and the Son. This is utter nonsense for how could there be a relationship when they think the same thing and agree all the time? They all know the same things and anything one does all does. To say God is relationships is as absurd as saying that God is three persons.
Suppose the argument is right that God needs to be more than one person. Well, the fact that he can't be three people in one God is sure proof that the God idea is entirely nonsensical and incoherent. It contradicts itself.

Also, when Christians believe that it is possible for three persons to be one being then how do they know that a unipersonal God can’t be happy? If the Bible said God was unipersonal they would be saying his happiness was a mystery. The God of the Torah never calls himself a spirit or Trinity but just stresses that he made all things and knows what is right and is fair and just and has spoken through prophets. In Deuteronomy 13 he warns against those who make prophecies that come true but who try to lead the people to other Gods. One way to lead such people to other Gods is by changing the teachings about the God that does exist to turn him into another God. Thus the Torah forbids the concept of the Trinity and God becoming man for these were later doctrines.
It is hard to see how Christians can refer to God as he when they mean they! They only use he because the entire Bible says he. Jesus said that God was daddy not daddies.
God can't have any needs for he is perfect and almighty. Is it really right to love for the sake of loving? Should there not be a need for the love? If God the Son loves God the Father then he is giving him love he doesn't need. No decent being asks for love that he doesn't need unless he asks it for the loving one's sake. The love would bother him for love implies sacrifice according to Christian doctrine. The Son being God doesn't need to love him when God the Father doesn't need this love. God the Son is loving himself not the Father if he loves the Father not for the Father's sake but his. The love in the Trinity is a fake hypocritical love. It is not real love.
As you will see from GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED (Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003, page 52), God, in Christian philosophy is utterly simple. The book says this means that God is not composite. The three persons of the Trinity are not parts of God that are put together to make God. God is not divisable. We cannot tell apart different elements in the being we call God. So we don't really know what we mean when we speak of God being three in one. So God revealing the Trinity means that God revealed words that mean nothing to us. They are just words. A God like that is a trickster. It is beneath him.
If it is so great for God to be more than one person then why is he just three? Why is he just three persons having relationships together? Why can't he be an infinity of persons? It is more perfect for there to be an infinity of persons in existence and therefore an infinity of relationships? If God is relationships then the trinity is false in the sense that a perfect God cannot be just three persons. The trinity then is the blasphemous denial of the perfection of God though it pays lip service to that perfection.
The trinity doctrine says God is one being. But he is also three persons. It is the being that is God thus the being matters more than the persons. The persons then are really idols.
The trinity doctrine is fraught with problems and outright nonsense.
From pages 50, 51,
CTS EXPLANATIONS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, by John Wijngaards, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1998
Three “Persons” in the Blessed Trinity
Watchtower Argument
Christians say that there are three Persons in God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They profess at the same time that there is only one God. But these two statements are completely contradictory.
To be a true “person”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be able to act independently. Each person has his own mind and takes his own decisions. But this means that there are really three Gods. The old Trinitarian gods of the pagan world have been reintroduced into Christianity in a new guise.
The objection would be valid if the word “Person” used in the Trinitarian formula were to have the same meaning as the word “person” in modern English. But such is not the case.1
The use of the term “Person” in the Trinity was introduced by the Greek Fathers of the Church as an equivalent to hypostasis subsistence. What they were trying to express is that somehow, though God is One, God is not solitary. Within the One God there are mutual relationships, as it were different faces that reflect one another. 2  
In human language this is sometimes expressed as the Father reflecting on himself and thus giving birth to the Son, and the Father and Son reflecting on their mutual love which becomes the Holy Spirit. Since we are talking about God’s deepest essence, we are dealing with first –class mystery, and human terms will always remain inadequate.
Using the term “Person” is not a fortunate turn of phrase when we speak of the Trinity today. For in present-day usage, a “person” refers to an individual who can independently think, decide and act. This is not how it is in the Trinity. The early Church Councils clearly expressed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. They have one intelligence, one will, and one combined external action, 3 if we may use such human terms about God.
Father, Son and Spirit possess one divine nature are not distinct in anything else except their mutual relationship to each other.
If we may sum up the meaning of our Christian belief in the Trinity in non-theological terms, it comes to this. God, cosmic Mind and uncreated Love, is so intensely personal that we experience God as caring Parent, intimate Brother and inner Spark in us, all at the same time. The personal dimensions in God are inexhaustible.

1 The Church admits that there would be a contradiction between saying there were three persons in God and that there was only one God so it denies that persons is the right word. This contradicts Jesus in John 8:17, 18. There he says that the law of Moses declares that the testimony of two people is true. He says that he testifies for himself and the Father testifies for him making up the two. This certainly implies that Jesus and the Father are two completely separate persons or centres of consciousness. If it was not two persons in one being but two "persons" in one being, the fact that they are the one being would mean that Jesus has not two witnesses but one.
2 We see that the Church denies that there are three literal persons for this is absurd. But then it says that there are mutual relationships in God. Why is it absurd to say there are three persons and then not absurd to say that though God is one he has relationships in himself? It makes no sense. First we are told that God is one and then that there are three distinctions in him, Father, Son and Spirit, so he’s not one after all. For a relationship to exist there has to be more than one person. A God who has a relationship with himself like he is three different people
The Church says that when it speaks of the three persons of the Trinity it doesn’t mean there are three individuals in God for that would be contradictory. God can’t be one God and also be three individuals. But he can be three whatevers and the Church is clear that the Father is not the Son or Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Church tries to avoid the charge of contradiction by saying that God is not made up of literal persons but this is a trick to obscure the obvious contradiction between God being one individual and undivided being and his having separation in him. The Church likes to distract from the real issue.  The Trinity is really three Gods pretending to be one God or the Church believing in three Gods and denying it. God couldn’t reveal the Trinity to us even if it were. We think in terms of either one or three not both. To honour the Holy Trinity then is to unavoidably honour three gods. Its the way we are made, we have no choice. God then has forced us into apostasy and polytheism by revealing the doctrine. Christianity is a polytheistic religion, it has more than one God.
The book by Brian Davies, a Dominican, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, states that the doctrine of the Trinity does not say that there are three distinct centres of consciousness in God (page 60). What it is saying that though God is undivided and one there are distinctions in him meaning that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. One wonders how God can be undivided and be one consciousness not three have these differences in himself when one person cannot be three persons or three persons one person.
3 If God is a personal relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit then if the three always act together and have one intelligence and one will then there is no relationship. How could there be when relationships take place only between separate beings who have separate wills and intelligences. They can will and know the same things but nevertheless though the content of the will and the intelligence may be the same they are separate. If John and Jack intend to steal a pound sitting on a table they will the same things but the wills are separate faculties or powers.
The Church says that God became man in Jesus Christ. However Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit but he is the Son. He is the second person of the Trinity. But if the Trinity is so close that we can deny the three are literal persons then how come Jesus is God the Son only? Surely he would have to be the Father and the Holy Spirit as well? The Church has never accepted the doctrine of treble incarnation that the three persons became the one man. It regards it as a heresy for it says the title Son of God indicates that Jesus was God the Son. Also Jesus when he prayed to God prayed to the Father so he couldn’t be the Father for you can’t pray to yourself. The Church says the three persons pray to each other for pray means have relationship with. Jesus said that nobody knows the Father but the Son indicating they are not the same person or being and that the Holy Spirit is certainly either the Father or not God at all. To say Jesus is God the Son only, implies that he is indeed a separate person and so the Trinity does consist of three individuals or Gods.
The Church admits that it doesn’t clearly know what the Trinity means and has no understanding of it. Words don’t help much and are only employed as an alternative to silence. The Church however claims that God revealed the doctrine to give us intimate knowledge of him and to tell his most intimate secret to us. All this sweet talk is sheer nonsense. It doesn’t really reveal anything. A God who gives us an unintelligible secret is giving us nothing at all. He is a cheat.


The doctrine of the Trinity was and still is just an invention of the Church.
The doctrine of the Trinity has no rational or biblical support. There is no evidence in its favour. It is just another Catholic concession to pagan trends and fashion to get members.

A CALL TO HERESY, Robert Van de Weyer, Lamp Press, London, 1989
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
CHRIST IS GOD, Rev JP Arendzen DD, Augustine Publishing Company, Devon, 1987
CHRIST OUR LIGHT, J Buys SJ Geoffrey Chapman and Gill & Son, London-Melbourne, Dublin 1966
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED Ed John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship Inc, Minneapolis, 1973
CTS EXPLANATIONS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, by John Wijngaards, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1998
DID JESUS CHRIST REALLY COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN? Alan Hayward, Christadelphian ALS, Birmingham
DO CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THREE GODS? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
FOUR GREAT HERESIES, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1975
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1994
HERESIES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM, Editors Ben Quash and Michael Ward, SPCK, London, 2007
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES John Wijngaards, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1998
JESUS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE GOSPELS, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
JESUS GOD THE SON OR SON OF GOD? Fred Pearce Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
MERE CHRISTIANITY, CS Lewis, Fontana, Glasgow, 1975
MIRACLES, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1960
PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC RELIGION, Studies in Comparative Religion, Rt Rev Mgr John M T Barton, DD, FSA, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1962
PRIESTLAND’S PROGRESS, Gerald Priestland, BBC, London, 1981
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE, Henry Morris, Moody Press, Bucks, 1988
SET MY EXILES FREE, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
SOME MODERN FAITHS, Maurice C Burrell and J Stafford Wright, Intervarsity Press, Leicestershire, 1988
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GODHEAD EXPLAINED, Christadelphian Press, Beverley, South Australia
THE METAPHOR OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993
THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, John Hick ed., SCM Press, London, 1977
THE NEW CULTS, Walter Martin, Vision House, Santa Ana, California, 1980
THE SPIRIT OF GOD, John Bedson, Lightstand Burbank CA 1984
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1992
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Campus Crusade for Christ, San Bernardino, 1983
UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER ESSAYS, William Ellery Channing, The Bobs-Merrill Company Inc, Kansas, 1957
WHEN CRITICS ASK, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992
YOU CAN LIVE FOREVER IN PARADISE ON EARTH, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, New York, 1982