Christian viewpoint unecessary
931172
It's too bad that this book uses God as a reason to simplify.  The old Berenstain Bears books left religion to be talked about between the parent and child, and that's where it should stay.  We enjoy the old books, they were full of morals and ethics without resorting to religion to back them up, and they were accessible to Christian, Jew and atheist alike.
2515017
Leaving Bonhoeffer's life aside, this book itself barely rates a 3. It is best seen as 32 short sermons which are intended to shake the reader's convictions, not a guidebook to be followed. "The Cost of Discipleship" makes the reader think, but it is extreme, as Bonhoeffer himself realized later in his life, calling his book "dangerous" although he did not totally renounce it.

Bonhoeffer responds to "cheap grace" Christians whose religious life is nothing more than going to church for an hour a week by proposing "Costly grace". The problem is that he goes from one extreme to another. Now instead of doing almost nothing for God, we become organic robots who live only to serve God and others, not ourselves. Bonhoeffer allows us just enough "earthly goods ... which are consumed in use and which meet the legitimate requirements of the body". We may consume enough fuel (food and water) to keep performing our function, but never enjoy it. It goes on and on in the same vein, with relationships, etc. The concept is basically 'a monk in Times Square' where we can come as close to being as possession-less and relationship-free as Jesus' wandering disciples were, but while still living in the evil "world".

Costly grace frees us from having to think for ourselves. As he says, "Happy are they who... are therefore free from the tyranny of their own ideas and calculations"! This "freedom" comes because the commands of Jesus can be followed super-literally, as if he were standing right in front of us as when he said those words, and as if we were wandering around Israel with him. Indeed, they must be followed that way, because anything else might make things easier, which would be "cheap grace".

The bible research included in the article is only sermon grade, not the level of a research paper (which is logical since Bonhoeffer was an ordained Lutheran pastor). He only quotes those verses which support his view.

It is also important to realize that Bonhoeffer wrote this in Nazi Germany in 1937 as the horrors grew. That explains somewhat his perspective.

All in all, this is a solid hell and brimstone sermon from someone who walked the walk as well as talking it (although as mentioned earlier he changed his mind somewhat).
2051077
It is not a theology book, but a book emphasizing the relational nature of God and how that relationship of love can be understood in the events of severe suffering in our lives.  It portrays a rather unconventional (though not unorthodox) presentation of God (Father, Son, Spirit).  Obviously, any book that tries to adequately portray God will fall short. He is incomprehensible and unportrayable.  Like other books that try to blend spiritual elements into human experiences it will have 'flaws'.  An attempt to describe a rainbow to a blind man would always fall short.  Here are the reasons I liked the book.  It portrays God in His eternal communion in His tri-unity.  It attempts to show the eternal love Father, Son, and Spirit have shared rather than simply the 'official' theological roles.  Second, he tries to do the same with the purpose of suffering.  He shows that God is intimately involved in the designed outcome of our puzzled suffering.  The author chooses the cruel abduction of a child, her vicious murder by a serial killer, and the 'escape' of capture and punishment of such a villain.  This happened while the father was busy rescuing one of his other children.  The father in the story was also horribly mistreated and tortured as a child by his 'religious' dad.  The author tries to incorporate real life events that are all too common today.  The real question has to do with "How could God let this happen if He loves me?" The other question has to do with forgiveness.  'How can I forgive my dad and do I need to forgive my daughter's murderer?'  Mixed into the story are relational issues of husband/wife, church authority, religious structure, and a host of other things.
  My caution is that while attempting to simplify one side of the human equation we often oversimplify the divine side. This book should be read to open discussion on the 'relational' nature of the Trinity, the 'relational' aspects of suffering, and the 'relational' understanding of marriage, parenting, and church.  It is an incomplete attempt to show one aspect of God.  Many will see it as irreverent because of God's portrayal as a black woman during much of the story.  However, he explains his reason for such a portrayal and I remind everyone that God could present Himself in any form He chooses (an angel, or even a burning bush).  I did not take it as a belittling of God but as an emphasis on His eternal affection within the Trinity and as a `nursing mother' who has deep and tender affection for His confused suffering children.  The book does make it clear that God is in control and that He is working all things together for His glory and for the good of those who belong to Him.
  My greatest concern was with the fact that some could interpret the book to teach `universalism', but I did not take it that way.  Any time we focus on one aspect of God's character, we will run the risk of omitting other significant and weighty aspects.  I think the book has value in opening discussion on subjects like God's sovereignty over suffering, forgiveness, family relationships, and true fellowship with God as opposed to `religion'.
3301035
At first glance, many believers will think that this book is based upon the rock of Christ's words, and those of the Bible. But, his inclusive approach is at best nothing but mystical cherry picking of particular passages that God apparently spoke to him about. Absent is a sound-minded explication of a systematic nature that one might expect from a seminary-trained pastor, and professor.

It is mystical to claim that he heard God 'speak' to him, and mysticism is nothing but a promotion of subjectivity--a sign of feminism and Romanism amongst other nefarious belief systems. Further, he seems to promote the errant theology of Karl Barth by calling his pursuit an 'encounter' with Jesus. For those of you who are familiar with Barth's error, you know that he disparaged doctrine, and rather adopted the term 'event' to describe truth, thus, the term 'truth as encounter'. In other words, it's the experience of this encounter when the words of the Bible suddenly and inexplicably become divine. Nevertheless, apart from the experience, they do not have the authority. If you think this is a stretch, just contrast this with the orthodox Protestant view that is the propositions of Scripture, and their logical deductions that composes God's word, completely independent of man's experience. Truth is not subjective, but objective.

He has adopted a Roman Catholic hermeneutic, which is wildly speculative. The Roman church is the most effeminate church on the planet as it exalts Mary to the role of co-redemptress, endorses visages, promotes mysticism, Popery (including the Popes claim to be God and own all souls universally, to be founded on Peter who is believed to be the first Pope, etc.)--all which disregard logic, and soundness of mind (masculine) and exalt the emotional hysteria (female). He is currently under the spell of feminism and appears to have capitulated to the wide, politically correct way back to Rome.

So, there's a theological critique of this work. It is effeminate, mystical, a capitulation to feminism, and an abandonment of true masculinity--but, most of all, it is a betrayal of Protestant sound thinking and reasoning from the Scriptures.

His conclusions do not appear to be the result of sound deductions from the Scripture, but some kind of generic, subjective introspection that serendipitously came through some inexplicable esoteric enlightenment.

It is falsehood that causes this man's soul to tremble (not all should aspire to be teachers for they face a harsher judgment), not the rantings of his irrational wife who presumes disrespectfully to instruct/enlighten her husband's mind. He has acquiesced to feminism, and a woman's attempt at usurpation of her man's authority. It causes him to bow to the pressure on this painful, yet unbiblical torment of introspection, mysticism, and getting into her head. In other words, it appears that he bowed to the pressure of discarding his masculinity, and exchanged it for an effeminate model.

When Christ says to love your wives many men are hoodwinked by the modern spin that Christ requires them to lay down their leadership, and adopt a shared authority by becoming beholden to becoming an expert at taking his wife's emotional temperature, and living according to those cues, thus, making her the controlling influence in the innovative, perverse model of domestic equality. The passage distinctly defines the way he is to love her: It is by the consistent instruction of the Word of God. In other words, he is to teach her washing her of corruption inherent in the female constitution, and she is to submit to this command by demonstrating humility, and receptivity.
1603457
Are there valuable insights on forgiveness to be found outside of Christianity?  This overtly humanistic resource aims to provide just that by using evolutionary social science and statistical research across a variety of cultures.  The introduction states the goal to "bypass all of the pious sounding statements about the power of forgiveness, and all the fruitless sermonizing about the destructiveness of revenge."  Perhaps that proposed idea alone could cause Christians to be on their guard.

McCullough tries to demonstrate how "natural" forgiveness and revenge are to humans, citing that the former doesn't require supernatural faith and the latter isn't to be objectively vilified.  From his vantage point, both are "age old solutions" to social problems in that each helps people adapt when they are harmed "significantly and intentionally by another."  While forgiveness allows one to move on in freedom, revenge can be used to set a boundary so that a hurt person isn't hurt again.

If you can suspend any prejudice of faith as you enter into this reading, there are some insightful thoughts to glean from the narrative shared.  Still, no balanced solution is offered except to propose that there is no "us versus them" - a we're-all-in-this-together ideology.  There are also several belittlements of Christianity's view of grace and hell, citing that the human Jesus created them "to attract new converts and keep the converts [He'd] already won."  Those pages alone might cause a new Christian to stumble in this read, thus reserving its "usefulness" to those who wouldn't find their faith rocked by someone throwing stones - and perhaps calling it justifiable "revenge."
506593
Full disclaimer: I was raised Christian, but I'm agnostic, and as strong in my beliefs as any Christian I know.
During a conversation about religion, a Christian friend asked that I read this book, largely because part of the conversation was my stating my "dislike" of the Christian requirements for entrance to heaven. It was a fair request, and I find the psychology of religion fascinating so I agreed to read it.
I will say, Andy Stanley is an engaging writer and the book is a very quick read. However, I can't see this book being very compelling for anyone who isn't already a Christian and believer that the bible is the word of god. Much of the argument Stanley presents is predicated on holding Christian belief and based on things the bible says. For those of us who don't consider the bible the word of god, that's not very compelling. One thing I found very interested is that, had I not known what the intent of the book was before starting it, I probably would have thought he was making a case for Atheism in the first half of the book.
Additionally, the logic Stanley uses isn't going to win many debates as it's very easy to poke holes in - in summary, it's the basic "if A doesn't make sense, it must be B" type logic, without any consideration for C, D, E, F, etc...even though those are valid, and probably more likely arguments.
Overall, this was a hard book to rate, because it's not poorly written, and if the target audience is Christians, than maybe he does achieve his goal, which is what matters right? Then again, for a reader like me, this book actually made my dislike of much Christian doctrine even stronger, so that would be a complete failure. In the end, I have to go 2 stars.
830614
Mr. Scott's review below unfortunately suffers from a failure to accurately represent Dr. Boyd's views. This is not to say I agree with Boyd, but the reader is encouraged to examine Boyd's position for themselves rather than rely on the misrepresentations in Scott's critique. In fact, one needs to read no further than page 19 to find this statement by Boyd, contradicting Scott's claims:
"I do not deny that in the context of this war zone God sometimes may allow, or even ordain, suffering for a particular higher purpose. Scripture teaches this much. I can therefore affirm much in those traditional theodicies that explain suffering as, for example, God's way of punishing sin, of building our character, or of contributing to some other 'greater good.'"
Satan & the Problem of Evil is the second book in a three-part series. The first volume is entitled God at War. This first book builds the biblical case for Boyd's view. Scott will find most of his straw men answered in this first book. The second book (the one under review) is more concerned with the philosophical arguments. The third volume is forthcoming and is entitled Myth of a Blueprint. From what I understand, it deals with the historical dimensions of the subject. In this series, Boyd addresses common conceptions of the Divine will as absolutely determinative, and proposes a model of spiritual warefare in which created beings do not always comply with that will.
Although Boyd's views may be seen as borderline evangelicism (especially his defense of open theism, or the "open view of God"), he does draw our attention to many relevant Scriptural themes which all too often aren't given their due.
The table of contents is as follows:
Introduction
1. The World at War: The Warefare Worldview of the Bible & the Early Church
2. The Free Fall: Free Will & the Origin of Evil
3. A Risky Creation: Divine Foreknowledge & the Trinitarian Warfare Worldview
4. A Question of Balance: Issues Surrounding the Foreknowledge of God & the Openness of the Future
5. Love and War: Risk & the Sovereignty of God
6. No Turning Back: The Irrevocability & the Finitude of Freedom
7. Praying in the Whirlwind: Miracles, Prayers & the Arbitrariness of Life
8. "Red in Tooth and Claw": Perspectives on the Origin of Natural Evil, Part 1
9. When Nature Becomes a Weapon: Perspectives on the Origin of Natural Evil, Part 2
10. This an Enemy Has Done: "Natural" Evil & the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy
11. A Clash of Doctrines: Eternal Suffering & Annihilationism
12. A Separate Reality: Hell, das Nichtige & the Victory of God
Appendix 1: Remaining Objections
Appendix 2: Four Philosophical Arguments for the Incompatibility of EDF & Self-Determining Free Will
Appendix 3: On Incomplete Probationary Periods
Appendix 4: A Theology of Chance
Appendix 5: Exegetical Notes on Texts Used to Support Compatibilism
Glossary, Bibliography, Author/subject index, Scripture index
Overall, this book is superbly written. Boyd is an author whose works are hard to put down.
1894481
I didn't realise not would have such a Christian angle to it. If you don't believe people are sinners (I don't!) then this is a hard book to read. I think it should be made clearer on the front cover that this is for Christians only
3056392
This book is a rather disappointingly fluffy presentation of what is known as "theological liberalism" (as distinct from political liberalism). Its main point is that not all aspects of the Christian story need to be taken literally, and that theology should be open to dialogue with other sources/tradition. This is fine (and commendable) as far as it goes, but the book is thin on what a non-literalist interpretation of Jones' three identified doctrines (Mary, Incarnation, Trinity) actually looks like in this "new" key (remember even Augustine never thought the six days of creation were literal!). At best, it is a passionate appeal for tolerance, dialogue, and an embrace of openendedness/ambiguity/imagination in theological discourse. At worst, it sounds like a hackneyed parody of Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?" and slides into syncretist pluralism. For a more thoughtful, rigorous, and systematic handling of some of the same topics, I recommend the "open orthodoxy" work of Keith Ward--Re-thinking Christianity is a good place to start. See also Ian S. Markham's essay "Theological Revisionism" in the Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology for more on the tradition of "theological liberalism."
1669273
This book, in my opinion, suffers from several seriously problematic statements that the ordinary reader might not pick-up on: A. There is a confusion of truth and faith. B. The theology is illogical. and, C. There is deep-seated religious bias.
Several months ago, my Unity teacher used this book by Mary-Alice and Richard Jafolla, former directors of Silent Unity (School of Christianity), as the basis for his sermons for four weeks and for a series of classes for the congregation's teenagers.  It was at that time that I surmised that the book has such unsound thinking as its basis.
The first problematic statement is (of course) the title which, to me, is a gross exaggeration.  From reading it alone, I assumed that I had come upon a book that is greater than the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Qur'an, or any other religious scripture because the authors are supposedly presenting not only the Truth of God, Life, & Other Stuff but they are even simplifying it for us!  However, I wasn't sure (nor am I now) whether such a hyperbolic title is a product of religious arrogance or naivet; for example, on page 9 the authors say, "All the principles presented are time-tested and true."  I am sure, though, that such a title is not proper scholarship, simply not truth but a statement of belief-based-on-faith, and easily remedied.  The authors need merely identify themselves in the title, such as "The Simple Truth of the Unity School of Christianity" or "Our Simple Truth", or "Our Simple Faith" etc.  In this way, the reader is made aware that the content of the book is not an absolute, eternal statement of Truth but rather the reality of God, life and other stuff as the authors understand and have experienced it.
The second problematic statement concerns a troublesome theological position that the entire Unity church must come to grips with.  It reads, "(Although God is sometimes referred to as Father, God is clearly not a person.)." (p. 7)  And, although this is a legitimate theological statement for a church to make, I believe that the authors make it illegitimate themselves by insisting that the truth of God must not only be understood but also experienced - thus making reason and experience the determining factors for arriving at truth.  Therefore, if Unity is honestly going to live up to its name then its definition of God must be large enough that it reflects the entire world's understandings and experiences of God or Ultimate Reality.  (This is what I do as a scholar of the world's religions, and what Hinduism does in the eyes of its faithful.)  So, it seems illogical for Unity to deny the faith, reason and experience of over one billion people in the world today (including traditional Christians, most Hindus, and many indigenous religious people) in order to assert its Christological position versus traditional Christianity.
 The third problematic statement concerns the authors' treatment of other religions; which, though probably unintentional, shows a deep-seated religious bias.  I'm referring to the story of the guru that introduces the book's search for a definition of God.  First, the authors imply that all of the world's religions have no (reasonable) definition of God while, in actuality, they all have quite elaborate definitions and the revelations and experiences to back them up.  Second, they present a teacher of the Hindu faith, a guru, as having only a silly answer - "God is a fountain."  Then, they go on to present a simplified version of Unity theology (again without identifying themselves) as the obvious Truth of God that supposedly answers all of those troublesome metaphysical questions that has all other religious teachers stumped.
 Once the authors have addressed these problems, this book, in my opinion, can serve as a beautiful and inspired introduction to the Unity worldview (which, though, itself seems shakey and makeshift as times).
3856855
Biblical examples of the triune God in action--as well as the place of each divine person in the plan of salvation--are well presented.
However, some interpretations of scripture stretch beyond the simple and natural reading of the passage.  (The use of a poor translation of a scripture from Jude is also problematic.)
The author at times interposes Reformed doctrines regarding predestination and election where they are not essential to the scriptural exposition.  He also voices skepticism toward charismatic/Pentecostal views of the Holy Spirit's activity.  Finally, he supports denominational tradition and authority over individual hearing from the Spirit.  One should consider these biases when reading and use discernment in the process.
822267
This is a book that every Christian should read and interact with, even if you do not agree with it in totality

As a person who went through years of theological training (5 years of Greek, 2 years of Hebrew), culminating in a ThM from Dallas Seminary, I thoroughly get David Bercot's point.  The study of theology was interesting to a point, but ultimately I found it to be quite empty.  In doing careful study and teaching of the book of Acts and now teaching and studying Matthew, I have come to the conclusion that there is precious little common ground between the teachings and practice of Jesus and the teaching and practice of the contemporary church.

Kudos to the author for standing up and making this point.  Is he the only one that sees the problem?  Can everyone be that blind?  Or is it simply much easier for the career theologians and religionists to simply "go along to get along."  Might that be the wide path that leads to destruction?  But I digress . . .

The author's key issue is right on target.  Instead of finding meaning in putting the basic teachings of Jesus into practice, these "scholars" have tried to find meaning and significance in drawing finer and finer lines of theology, as if theology is an end to itself.  Theologians tend to speak without basis and tend to like to stay with the herd.  Conservatives like to decry the lack of free expression in the liberal institutions of learning, but the truth is that political correctness has become an absolute art form within the institutional church and its related organizations and denominations.

It is difficult to be the one who stands up and points out how far the church has strayed from the original teachings of Jesus.  There is a definite price to be paid for not going along with the crowd.

One area where I was not satisfied was the explanation of the relationship between fruit/works and salvation, and truly this is a difficult area to explain.  The author makes it sound as if we are going to be ultimately judged by our works, and there are verses to demonstrate this point, but ultimately we are all unworthy and fall short as the Bible also teaches very clearly.  In the end, we are only saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, his Son.  The evidence of fruit is simply demonstrative of a changed life, and there will be varying levels of fruit.  It is the 'no fruit' life that is condemned.

I am also left with questions of "what now?"  What do we do with this knowledge?  What does a true New Testament church look like?  Where do we go from here?  Maybe one of his other books will delve into this in greater detail.  I hope so.  I am reading the other books now.

God bless you Mr. Bercot for the courage to speak the truth.
814700
Jesus taught his followers to be in the World but not of the World. Hatred of other racial groups, hatred of other ethnic groups and discrimination based on ones ancestry is evidence that God's church often is in the World and of the World. Community norms often due influence theological thought, philosophy, and ones religious perspective. Wrongheaded, inconsistent theological rationale and outright contradictory teaching to Gods scripture come forth from the pulpit, the Sunday school room and the seminary. These things deserve opposition and doing so is doing the work of God. To be God's work it must be consistent with the Bible. In most cases being obedient to the government is a Christian thing to do. One should never allow love of country, love ones ancestors, or ones heritage cloud ones love of God or define who God is.
The author of this book, James H. Cone, perceived an evil, hate filled America that discriminated against black people. It is his argument that the white church whether Fundamental in character or mainline Protestantism in thought the ultimate outcome is to uplift white people and diminish black people. The author of this book found following white developed theology by descendents of slaves as contra productive to spiritual and physical well being of the black man. Perceiving that a large segment of the black population would not leave the church, he wrote an argument how the black church should change its theology so to work to fit its needs. This book is not an argument that theology should not be influenced by societal norms, but an embracement of the community determining theology based on its needs. The author makes a distinction between the philosophy of religion and the theology of religion. Under his definition theology is determined by the community while philosophy is the arguments and thoughts about God that fit logic but are foreign to the masses. Theology is the continued attempt by the community to give reason for being. The function of the church is not spiritual renew in the sense people are atoned for their sins, but to find a place in this world, to have an independent thought from white racist society, and live independent from the structures set up by the white man. The white man, the white government and the white church are evil.
In the book there are very few scriptural references. There are plenty of quotes from theologians. While the author is critical to Fundamental theologian and liberal theologian for the same result by different means, he feels free to use the liberal theologian's philosophy to determine theology based on community needs and thought processes. James H. Cone does use the concepts of the Kingdom of God, sin, God's wrath, Jesus identifying himself with the oppressed, God punishing evil and God being in work in the world. He argues any attempt to argue for turning the other cheek, subservient to those in authority, or seek change through peaceful means are the chains of white oppressors theology. Page 67 "(.... We should not conclude that the Bible is an infallible witness. God is neither the author of the Bible, nor is the writers His secretaries. "Jesus is black. We cannot rely on the Bible to tell the truth about him. The church sole purpose is to liberate Black people. White people should repent for thinking white and only learn as the black theologian teaches him. A rationale for black independent thought.
4630883
The writer is a theological seminary graduate with a PhD. He is also an Anabaptist and a radical Believer as far as I can see. The book is to be commended in that he is authentic and makes himself vulnerable. We all struggle with the view that God reveals Himself as the God of love and justice (vengeance) at the same time. Balance is key. Too far on one side and you end up with no punishment or hell. Too far the other side and you end up doubting God loves at all. What he calls progressive, I consider to be on the liberal side. What he calls fundamentalist, I consider to be on the safer side, but - I also have my problems with unloving, quick judging, harsh, critical fundamentalists. I think Corey tries to strike a balance, but I fear he places supreme emphasis on his experience which is subjective. I believe we need to be objective. As such, the book leaves me disturbed. He re-interprets Jesus walking on the water as Jesus, showing up in unexpected places and doing the unpredictable. He reinterprets the journey of the disciples and Jesus to Emmaus as the disciples verbalising what they no longer believed. A point he suggests helped him discover his new freedom.
The strength of the book is that all people will relate to the fact that church going people are taught from a young age to fear God. The weakness is that he doesn't distinguish between good/ or right fear versus bad and crippling fear. He places far too much emphasis on his journey/experience.  Another weakness is his view that God has regrets. Something historical Christianity would challenge.
2196127
I love Boyd's work regarding free-will and warfare world view, but I feel he has tried to fit a square peg in a round hole on the non-violence issue. His thesis is based centrally - almost entirely- on God looking like Jesus on the cross. Why is it fair or accurate to build a theology on a singular event? Yes, the cross is a pinnacle moment, but not the only moment. It could just as easily be said that God looks like Jesus rebuking politicians. Or God looks like Jesus casting out demons. That would be an incomplete picture. The best revelation humans have of God the Father was given by Jesus on earth. "If you have seen Me, you have seen the FATHER". However, scripture suggests the best revelation of God the Judge is yet to come... that includes unpleasant punishment and/or destruction of the wicked. Jesus said he will be the Judge. Call it what you will, but the judgement to come doesn't sound non-violent. It's a common error to focus on only one aspect or role of a being. For example, let's say Johnny's loving, earthly father is also a local judge by occupation. When Johnny turns rotten and murders someone his father must sentence Johnny to life in prison because he must uphold the rule of law that maintains order in society. God takes no pleasure in punishing the wicked but He must uphold His universe. Unfortunately, punishment by definition is something unpleasant or painful, and sometimes that can be categorized as violent. Can the destruction of any living soul be called anything else but violent? God is a loving Father and loving Judge. He is Father and also the King by "occupation". God allows Self to be crucified on a cross without putting up a fight, but also is a warrior that reluctantly slays the wicked to protect His kingdom from evil... i.e., warfare world view. Why is it faulty to think that in the future Jesus will one day say, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Warrior King"? Time will tell. That said, I love Boyd's passion  for pursuing truth to the fullest extent. Perhaps he is closer to the truth on this topic than I am. But I've yet to be convinced.
1438144
Frankly, I was disappointed by this book.  Having been raised as a Southern Baptist, I found myself thinking more about the people and matters the author left out of the book than the material he included.  Naturally, it is quite difficult to cover the entire Bible in one normal-sized book, but I found this work to be overly simplistic and lacking in its overall presentation of the true meaning of the Bible and Christianity.  The author devotes the first two-thirds or so of the book to a presentation of the geography and history of Biblical times, coupled with a quick summation of the poetical, prophetic, and instructional books.  Having completed that task, he ends by summing up eight basic principles of the Bible.  I had expected to find the real meat of the book in this last section, but I found it sorely wanting in terms of its exposition of Christian doctrine and guidelines.  The real meaning of Jesus' life never really emerged from the pages, and the importance of faith, while addressed, was not stressed or explained as much as I would have liked or expected it to be.
Certainly, the author's motives are noble, but his desire to make this book accessible to anyone and everyone results in a dry presentation that is not very compelling.  This book would be most useful to persons without any kind of religious background, but I fear that it will not bring real understanding to most of its readers, nor do I think it will convince many sinners to seek God.  Anyone brought up as a church-goer in a Christian denomination will learn nothing he/she didn't already learn in Sunday School as a child.
1303139
A while ago, I saw an article about this recent book that intrigued me. It said that the author argued that Jesus was a myth and offered a list of 126 writers who should have written about Jesus but did not. It seemed to be based on serious research. I was excited about reading it.

Unfortunately, the book is not primarily concerned with the issue of Jesus as a myth. The argument for Jesus as a pure myth is briefly presented in the midst of the book's primary argument that Christianity has historically been a force for evil and savagery in the world. The book primarily recites a long list of crimes committed by Christians and Christian groups over the last 1900 years. This takes up most of the book's 365 pages.

The book is a sermon on why people should not be Christians. Since plenty of sermons are given all the time about why people should be Christians, I don't find anythingwrong with that.  It is kind of like Bertrand Russel's "Why I am Not a Christian" on steroids. I think every young Christian should get it for Christmas to get a more balanced perspective on the history of the religion. I did find lots of bits of information that I did not know. For example, I did not know that the Emperor Constantine had the philosopher Sopater put to death, or that the Christian Emperor Valens had the philosophers Simonides and Maximus put to death around 370. I thought Hypatia was the first philosopher to suffer at the hands of Christians for her wisdom The bad part is that the historical and social conditions that have resulted in so many horrible actions are never presented in a clear or rational light. In some cases the actions are rather unfairly attributed to Christian teaching. For example, the book begins strangely enough with an attack on Joseph Stalin. It is alleged that his Christian upbringing was responsible for his activities as leader of the Soviet Union from 1927 - 1954. The issues are significantly more complex than Paulkovich suggests.

I still think that Paulkovich's argument about the 126 sources is a valid and powerful argument against the historical existence of a biblical Jesus. In a way, it is sad that it is presented in this type of book, as it makes the argument seem more subjective than it is. The numerous attack against the specific argument that I have seen have focused on straw man arguments, for example, critics note that no works of about 1/3 of the authors presently exist. Obviously, if Jesus had been mentioned in them, we should expect that at least the mentions of Jesus would be transmitted, so this counter-argument can be immediately dismissed.

In the politics of Atheism and Christianity, the book has some interest for its straight forward and rather passionate case against Christianity, It does sacrifice depth for breath, which really can't be helped. In 365 pages, it cannot be expected to go into any of its dozens of subjects very deeply.

Strictly speaking, it is grossly unfair to Christianity by only emphasizing the violence, stupidity and craziness connected with it. it doesn't talk at all about some of the brighter moments in Christian history - the Renaissance and the American Abolitionist movement for example. The book is animated by a lively spirit (an unholy spirit, some Christians might label it).

If you are looking for books about Jesus being a Pure Myth, this is not the book to read. You should probably try Richard Carrier, Robert Price or Earl Doherty to get a background  or visit Ken Humphry's website Jesusneverexisted.com.