I found I disagree with the author on his premise ...
354179
I found I disagree with the author on his premise that every symbol is based in evil.  In my world that is simply not true.
2684007
Well, I love the premise. But I spent too much time questioning the follow through of the experience. This type of golf memoir is much to common. The idea of someone giving up so much to chase the game in a quasi spiritual way has become trite. And when the author talks about how much he misses his family while in Scotland...please sir, did someone put a sand wedge to your head?

But I want to be sure I thank him for the insight into relationships present in the tale. Not so much his, but the antidotes he shares about his customers. And I will read any golf book before turning on the TV.
2814707
I loved this book until I read his blog. Things just don't add up. So did he change things to make the book more dramatic? I feel cheated and lied to. That's why I took two stars off. Yes he's a great writer, but he says at the end of his blog that it a true account and some things aren't pretty, but then like I said his blog and the book are not the same. I won't go into the parts that make me feel this part fiction, I'll leave that for you to see for yourself, but read his blog either first or after and you'll see that things don't add up to be a TRUE account of his time on the trail and the things that happened to the people he walked with.
2517441
When the hero (Dave) first told himself he could not date Kate because she was not a Christan, I hesitated to read further.  I thought perhaps he might become more open-minded as the story progressed.  When Kate's sister starts shoving the Bible on her, I rolled my eyes, but still continued on.  This book is written for people who believe they have the only answers and arrogantly believe that people with different beliefs are always wrong.  I hate it when an author preaches.  This arrogance among evangelicals is one of the reasons I left organized religion to begin with.  If the purpose is to bring people "into the fold," it failed miserably with me.
1658804
I am pretty perturbed that I bought this and Pepin's other two books. I am not really into the kinds of things he is advocating. I doubt I will finish this book. I agree with the premise that every person is energy and your true self is comprised of that energy. He lost me when he started talking about projecting energy onto objects and people. The author recounts a story in which he instructed a client to project the thought "Leave!", etc. on to the doormat of some bothersome tenants. I just don't roll like that. I pursue spirituality to evolve my soul. Using my energy to influence others to act in certain ways is a troubling concept in my opinion. The entire tenor of the book reads a little aggressive for me. I am more of the accept and go with the flow sort. Still, the author's basic ideas about how the spiritual world jives with what I have learned from many other teacher and with my own experience.
425814
Don't get me wrong. I'm not new to New Age writings -- quite the opposite in fact, which is why I was so pleasantly intrigued with the premise suggested in the book's title and subtitle. With the author's writing style, though, I couldn't go more than a few chapters in before I realized I was growing increasingly skeptical and annoyed. Frankly, the writings read (to me) like someone who was extremely high when they were written or, less charitably, by someone who was mocking his readers.

I choose to believe the author's intentions were good, and will only say that my approach to the subject matter is apparently considerably more pragmatic than the author's, um, esoteric approach.

You'll find this same review by me on the same author's "Televisionary Oracle". That's not an accident -- his writing style completely puts me off.
1109297
From the offing, I am not reviewing this book based upon the beliefs therein, even though they conflict with my own. I am reviewing it on the way those beliefs are extolled, the weakness of the arguments, and the inaccuracy and narrow-mindedness of the writing style. My own personal opinion is that you will always see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, and this book is evidence that such an opinion is valid. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable for Christian writers to investigate what they perceive to be the threats to their religion, and to write about them, it is not acceptable to research something whilst knowing in advance what you are going to find. As someone who is involved in the rock scene, I can vouch for the fact that the views proposed in `Occult Explosion' are from an outsider rather than insider viewpoint. Indeed, I doubt that David Marshall actually spoke to any of the people involved in the `rock-rave scene'; he spoke to Christians who had come out of it, but there is no non-Christian viewpoint offered anywhere in the book. As such, `Occult Explosion' is filled with stereotypical, barely cognisant views, and the author's `fourteen-month investigation' seems to have consisted of Marshall listening to a few records and talking to a number of fellow Christians.
That Marshall has a deft ability to twist the off-the-cuff, inane, self-aggrandising remarks of rockstars into pronouncements of their desire to destroy all life is clear from the start, but what becomes even clearer as the book progresses is that Marshall will twist anything to fit his argument. He finds bands which weren't very successful but were associated with Satan and seems to promote these as the standard norm. Justin's story promotes the `demons' view of hearing voices, rather than acknowledging the psychological and drug-related stimuli. He mentions that `between 80 and 90 percent of heroin addicts use marijuana before becoming involved with narcotics', without mentioning that probably 1 percent of people who use marijuana end up on heroin (great way of twisting the facts). Furthermore, he has very little understanding of the music world. He seems to believe that people who listen to `Kerrang' (?), Heavy Rock and Heavy Metal also go to Raves, and that Rave is the natural outcome to which a rock fan will aspire. The fact that Rave and Rock are so far apart in terms of style and fanbase that no person into Rave would listen to Rock and no Rock fan would ever go to a Rave is something that Marshall clearly misses, an inaccuracy that undermines the whole argument of the book. And what would he say about Christian rock bands like POD? Do they fit the `rock is evil' argument?
Admittedly, there is a high instance of anti-Christian sentiment in the rock world, but more because of the narrow-minded interpretations Christianity directs at it and not through a desire to consort with the Devil. Marshall, interpreting the lyric `We don't talk about love/We only want to get drunk' from the Manic Street Preachers song `A Design for Life' (which he seems to think is called `A Design'), says: `before we die laughing at their stupidity...' It seems to me very ironic that Marshall should call MSP stupid, when he in fact misinterprets them - they are lamenting the fact that we don't talk about love, not commending it! Marshall has therefore shown he has found, in lyrics that agree with his viewpoint, the `evil' he is looking for. If that is not seeing what you want to see, I don't know what is.
4802760
He is just so wrong.  I am not sure how someone can ignore SO much science and be THIS wrong.  I heard the author on a podcast and remembered thinking, "is he delusional" ?  I don't know if he really believes what he says...but I do have to say I find his information full of crap!

Because THATs how I feel after reading it and having done my own research.  I don't have to justify my opinion of the book to you...I've given my opinion of the content and this forum does not comply me to provide a list of all my research and all the scientific studies that oppose many of his statements.  If you like the book, by all means tell us all why.  You don't even have to back it up with studies or facts....you can just like it.  I, however, have learned that many of the things he writes about are just plain wrong, in MY opinion.  And I can share that opinion without the need for an appendix.
3911252
The author starts this book by establishing the importance of history in biblical interpretation.  Stressing that history and the ancient believers can be a guide to helps us avoid false teachings.  Then he goes on to claim that the Word of Faith movement(advocates of the supposed Prosperity gospel) are based historically on New Thought.  There are two major problems with this foundation and therefore ANY conclusions that are drawn from it.

1. The Word of Faith movement is not founded in New Thought. (See "Only Believe" by Dr. Paul King a critic of the movement.)  This foundation premise of the author has been shown by many scholars to be a completely false assumption.  Dr. King shows that what is being taught by "contemporary faith leaders" has been taught by Puritans, Baptist, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentacostals, early Church fathers, Dutch Reformists, Quakers, Anglicans, and on and on.  Dr. King also concludes that there have been mistakes made by these "contemporary faith leaders".  This is his opinion but I am confident in some way it is true.  All of us have made mistakes.  Nevertheless, the author begins with the wrong assumptions and never had a chance to come to the right conclusions.

2.  The other issue I have, and this is more general, is the opening premise by this author (and others I have read) that we can determine absolute truth by historical teaching.  Now, they may not say it in this way.  But they discredit teachings, Dr. King included, based on this foundation premise.  If history was to be such a strong guide, and new understanding of Scripture was not given by God as we progress through time, then we would not have believer's baptism, salvation by grace through faith, sanctification by grace through faith (not sacraments), the priesthood of all believers, etc.  In other words, we would not have had the Reformation. Without the Reformation many of the critics of the Word of Faith movement would not have a denomination.  No Baptists, no Methodist, no Prebyterians, etc. would exist today.  So obviously, there is a belief that false teachings can and are at times older than there real truth revealed to us in God's Word.

One final thought specifically on prosperity (although I prefer the word "blessing").  For those of you who have a lot of money or any money for that matter, how did you get it?  You own hard work?  You great intellect and/or skill?  Born in the right family, right country?  Were you just "lucky"?  If you say "yes" to these questions then are you giving the glory to God?  "Proper" Word of Faith teaching gives the glory to God for all our blessings including every dime we ever receive.  It does not fall into the trap of "God picked you to be poor and me to be rich(just meaning to have plenty)".  It teaches that the FULL blessing of God is available (and actually our inheritance by faith) of every child of God through Jesus Christ.  We receive the blessing, just like salvation or any gift from God, through faith in God and His Word.  By faith in His Word, we believe His promises and live life according to His laws/precepts ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments (words)").

I hope this brief critic of the book/defense of a small part of the Word of Faith teaching will beneficial to you.  I hope you would read this and seek out what they actually teach or at the very least a balanced critique.

God Bless.
4513634
Mr. Prothero wrote a book with the purpose of encouraging the inclusion of the Bible as literature and comparative world religions in the academic setting.  Mr. Prothero states literacy will create better citizens in today's America and today's world.  For this premise and purpose I applaud his efforts.

However, Mr. Prothero, sadly, chose to attack individuals (such as Karen Armstrong) who have written theological books which he disagrees with, and ties together religious literacy with those who are religious within the framework of organized religions.

Mr. Prothero draws the incorrect correlation between books like Ms. Armstrong's&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Great-Transformation-The-Beginning-of-Our-Religious-Traditions/dp/0375413170/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions</a>&nbsp;and religious ignorance.  Ms. Armstrong's treatment of different religious as originating from a similar or identical source is a theological statement.  Her book also relies upon knowledge of each of the traditions examined, and does educate the reader regarding those traditions.  Mr. Prothero goes to pains in his TV interviews to state he is not a theologian, but a professor of religious studies.  The theology of Ms. Armstrong and the desire for religious literacy are not incompatible - rather they are in two different camps.  Ms. Armstrong is looking at theology, Mr. Prothero's premise is looking at citizenship.  The beliefs (or non-beliefs) of Mr. Prothero's readers and audience should not be at issue.  Whether Ms. Armstrong, myself, or any other reader of Mr. Prothero's believes that many religious may have similar origins does not change the need for American citizens and world citizens to be better educated with respect to the Bible and world religions.

Further, Mr. Prothero spends many pages in his book implying that religious individuals (i.e., members of organized religions) are more likely to be religiously literate.  This again has nothing to do with Mr. Prothero's premise.  As Mr. Prothero himself points out, the vast majority of members of organized religious institutions are themselves religiously illiterate.  While Mr. Prothero may want more individuals to be members of organized religion, it has nothing to do with his premise, and detracts from the same.

The premise of this book would have been better served had Mr. Prothero provided anecdotal evidence of situations where literacy could have changed circumstances in recent history, and how literacy would help prevent those same mistakes in the future.
3564364
I felt the author made some outlandish generalizations about Northamericans (the ones from the U.S.)
I stopped reading the book because I felt the author (for lack of another expression) was full of s***!!
He however is a fantastic writer even though I strongly disagreed with his "negative" views of people in the U.S.
4916519
The author's thesis is based on his belief that we do not have free will.  He makes such a statement very early on in the book.  As a result of that statement I was unable to finish the book.
1354611
I have enjoyed the first portions of this text, but Mr. Levitin lost my interest when he said the following:

"The work of artists and scientists is ultimately the pursuit of truth." He goes on to say that "...the nature of truth is that it is contextual and changeable." Although I wholeheartedly agree that science has found previously-held truths to be erroneous, I disagree that truth in general is changeable. Is it wrong to kill someone? I believe so. This is a truth that should not be changed to accommodate someone's whims.

I'm sure I'll learn much more on a level of music, but Mr. Levitin in this case has missed the boat by making a broad sweeping comment that plays to the tide in our culture these days that will, in the end, be proven to be dead wrong.
2372194
I really wanted to like this book, I think he comes to some really great conclusions and I think where he takes it is correct in the end,  but he uses some incredibly bizarre arguments to try and make points that could've been made quite easily without them.

Adam being intersex?  Men can only get in touch with their feminine side if they marry?  Adam prophesying that "man shall leave his father and mother"... uh hello!  A first year Bible student knows that that statement was Moses' commentary on the first couple.

All of that to say, I really wanted to like this book, but I am just probably going to pitch it.  If you choose to buy or read this book, please don't be taken in by the persuasive and affable presentation, fact check every single thing that seems like a "new revelation."  The Bible stands on his side when it comes to the nature of women in God's eyes, but he sadly ruins his credibility by choosing the most bizarre routes to get there.
3341560
The author keeps making assumptions about questions he ask's the reader. Each question so far I have answered he opposite of his assumption. Thus creating a non-belief in his writing.
532311
An interesting read, but the authors' debates can be irritating.
4031800
I thought this book would be a reasoned discourse on what the author has gained from religion; instead it feels like someone is screaming at me because I disagree with him. I'm sorry I wasted my money, apparently he does not hate me too much to take it.