True Believers are Followers not Fans
585652
All Christians need to define their relationship with Jesus as he will ultimately define it for you on Judgement Day. not a fan is a great book that confronts our committment to Christ.  Kyle Idleman's DVD's are a great resource that uses a persons life choices to teach us the consequences of being a fan rather than a true follower similar to Jesus' use of parables in the Gospels. Don't just read the Bible, Live it!!!
454006
Fundies who claim every word in the Bible is true are accepting a lot of things that just don't hunt for me.  I mean when was the last time you saw a unicorn, a talking donkey or any of the other magical creatures in the Good Book (by the way, the words "good" and "evil" are about on par in numerical count)?  I profess that unicorns don't and never have existed.  Let the Fundies defend the existence of unicorns.  Adult worship is a replacement for Santa.
1517687
I get a kick out of some revewers who think the author is a little harsh on religion.  Excuse me...I believe the religious are the people that will tell you you're going to hell if you don't follow their particular brand of insanity.  Talk about harsh.
4463377
excellent info on growing spiritually for new believers especially, but also more seasoned believers, prayer, bible reading plan, false religions, how to witness tell others about Christ ect. those people bashing the book are simply showing their true colors they're probably not even saved, how someone could have such a mean critical spirit when they were just saved raises serious questions, 2 of them in bondage to Roman Catholicism so it's obvious why they don't like it, Catholicism is a cult truth hurts sometimes :)
4458137
This sounds like some strange late night infomerical for a weird cult or something.  The whole thing about drawing positive forces towards you, or whatever "secret" sort of rubbish they go on about is just that - rubbish.  There is nothing real here, nothing truly spiritual, nor is there anything that stands up to real science.  All this makes it a big waste of time.  Its pseudoscience for people who are looking in the wrong direction for meaning and purpose and the answers to life's basic questions.  They will not find those answers here.
2946066
After spending many years interacting with the public, I have found that they do Not like their Urban Legends disturbed!  They want to keep thinking the strange and unusual (of often grisly)FOAF stories, even in the face of fact.  They will, in fact, probably not like you for being able to show them in tangible print that this did Not happen.  So keep it to yourself, perhaps a few close friends, a spouse, but keep it on hand for the occasional zealot for whom such factual books are an anethema.  (mruhahaha!)  Just a suggestion.
3215920
I see the poor reviews and the reasoning behind them, they are weak at best. For instance, Faith is indeed something to be believed based on no evidence. One Idiot, Olmstead I believe, even admitted to not reading the book, yet he reviewed the book and got angry when someone asked him to not review a book he hasn't read. This book is to help atheist combat people like this. As an open atheist, I am given books to read. They come from friends who wish to make me "see the light". I read them. I don't devalue their opinions. but I have longed for more books to give them to read, as food for thought. This is one of those books. Perhaps it's not a manual for atheist to makeother atheist, but rather a book for believers to read as a manual to become atheist.
2708672
I'm just not a huge fan. I know other people like them though.
154165
Wow, this one is truly just for the believers. If you grew up on platitudinous answers and religious jargon, you'll grab this book and curl up by the fire for a wonderful evening of feel-good reading.

If, on the other hand, you're a thoughtful person who respects reason and cogent arguments, you need only open any page at random to see how ludicrous some of this book's verbiage can be. The title does offer a hint--this is a book to reassure believers that all those new books questioning God's existence are bad. This author doesn't begin to offer anything of interest to the non-believer, given it's fundamentalist pat answers that really don't make any sense to regular people.

Some examples....

True to the fundamentalist mind set, the author has no clue as to how non-believers employ reason. It's such a foreign concept that he assumes no one could possibly reject the notion of supernatural deities simply because it doesn't make sense. Quote:

"For your own sake, ask yourself what hinders you from coming to the Savior? Is it your pride? Do you prefer the praises of men to the praise of God? Do you fear man more than you fear God? Perhaps you are afraid your friends will laugh at you. ... Perhaps it's your love of money...."

Can I get an LOL? Then there's the same old unimaginative bait-and-switch about faith, suggesting faith in the supernatural is no different from "faith" in the realm of realities. It works for believers every time; it's ludicrous to the rest of us. Quote:

"If you decide to take a taxi to work, you will have to trust your life to the vehicle and the taxi driver, and trust the other drivers to stay on their side of the road. You will have to trust elevators, stairways, airplanes, the post office and banks. Believe me--we either live with faith or fall victim to paranoia. If, then, faith so evidently surrounds us, why should it be so offensive?"

Do they really see logic in that??  (Hint: our "faith" in elevators and banks is based on evidence.)

In responding to the atheist's question of who made God, the author says "For the answer, all I need is to be able to reason with you, and for you to be reasonable." At this point, and I am not being facetious, I laughed out loud. If there's anything this book lacks, it is reason and reasonableness.

Look, this guy asks us to believe that the Christian deity is for real, even though this deity is just like all the other pagan deities (who also had virgin births, resurrections, blood sacrifices and "bliss if you worship me - torture if you don't"). He wants us to believe some rather fantastical stuff about this pagan-like deity, and he bases it on the Bible, which he accepts as the perfect word of this perfect deity. (He criticizes the "traditional" church for not sticking to the Bible.) So let us charitably overlook the wickedness of this jealous, vindictive deity as portrayed especially in the OT, and look at only the contradictions....

In the book of Genesis, there are TWO accounts of creation, and they directly contradict each other. At least one of them has to be false. There are also two (or is it 3?) sets of "ten commandments" that contradict each other. At least one of them is false. Most Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that their perfect, holy scriptures contain more than 300 direct contradictions. Yet this author asks us to use those writings (of necessity picking and choosing among the true and false parts) as the basis for believing these amazingly fantastical tales about this particular ancient god that he's selected to believe is the one real supernatural being.

Which brings us back to the book at hand. Why doesn't this author offer anything that would convince, or even minimally appeal in some way to people outside the in-group of believers themselves? Because he can't. It would be an impossible task, given the material he has to work with.
3570605
Cheesy and propaganda for the church.  I especially didn't like the insinuation that you should disown any family members who do not believe as you do and that you can only be happy if you believe in god.  This is closed minded and in my opinion what causes a lot of problems in our society.  Because those who believe in God are not always good people and there are many who do not believe in God who are.
2275804
My heart goes out to Charb.  He spoke his mind, and was killed for that.

I feel an odd compuction to offer another atheist's perspective.  There are a few atheists who accept the "Godly", *theistic* perspective as a product of a psychological type that is antithetical to their own.  That's me.  There are Godly athiests.  I'm not one, but my father is.  From where I sit, the bible thumpers can often seem silly, but I would not go so far as to call them "f***wits".  They have a conscience.  Even when not observed, they feel compelled to act as if they are being observed.  Forget God, and think about the herd. We have instincts that lead us to actions that sometimes sacrifice our personal well being for the well being of the herd.  Some call that altruism, others call it the work of a "f***wit".  And when Charb talks of the "f***wit" who listens to the Imam and feels that God (the surveillance camera) is watching him,  I am sympathetic to that guy.  He has a conscience.  He calls it God, but, *WHATEVER*!  I call it altruism.

There was a long discussion on the radio today about free will and advanced physics.  The smart physicists are very confused about free will.
2766808
John Hogue spends most of his time blasting fundamentalist preachers and says very little of value beyond that. So what if fundamentalist preachers are a little naive? That doesn't mean they are evil people intent on deceiving everyone on the planet. I can make up my own mind about the value or lack of value of the teachings of fundamentalists. I don't need Hogue to do my thinking for me. Hogue would have been better off defining his own version of the meaning of the blood moons, and not spend page after page of diatribe about someone else's opinion. I have always liked listening to John Hogue on coasttocoastam.com, but I have read two of his books now and I am disgusted. Instead of tearing everyone else down, it might be a good idea to express his own opinions about the situation.
976276
Many in Christianity will not like this... It takes all the facade off of faith and brings followers of Jesus back to their real mission.
2115930
Mr. Pullman, while gifted as a writer, seems to see himself as a prophet of atheism. Do I have a problem with this? No! Mr. Pullman can preach whatever he believes. Do I have a problem with this trilogy? Yes, and emphatically so. These books are NOT PRO-athiest. They are ANTI-Christian/Judaism/Muslim. They don't attack the idea of God, they attack these faiths specific views of God; a very important distinction.

These books were written for children--and written in such a way as to try to guide children into agreeing with Pullmans beliefs. He does not come out and say what he thinks until the end of the trilogy, by which point the children have come to identify with his characters. Mr. Pullman is taking the only audience he can find that are impressionable enough to do damage to, and trying to influence their thinking. He compares himself to CS Lewis--an anti-CS lewis if you will--this is fine (if incorrect, as Lewis is promoting a belief, not attacking one). However, the subtle nature of his work and the fact that his books are not advertised as anti-Judeo/Christian is where the problem comes in. If he wants to write to influence people, he is welcome to do so (and even should do so if he has strong beliefs), however, he shouldn't try to sneak his ideas past the guiding influence of parents. Mr. Pullman is an ethical coward--one who will not try to sell his ideals to completely rational beings, for fear of rejection and low sales.

To conclude, Mr. Pullman should either write books without his moral slant, or declare their moral slant early (on the cover!)so that parents can more easily understand what the book is about and what the author is trying to convince their children of.
1211929
It is no wonder why so many theologians become agnostic.  There are far more Bible chapters and versus that prove the book should be considered a Rule and Guide only and not words spoken directly from God, but rather by authors as they see through their own inspirations the way they view God.  Priest Craft, Musical composers, powerful Inspirational writers, and television evangelist keep those seeking the truth to hang on as believers. The Jim Jones of  Guyana who led 900 of his followers to their suicide and David Koresh , a cult leader of the Branch Davidians  which is a break-a-way from the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who caused eighty four deaths, and other charlatans are known to have claimed to be Bible experts.
So obviously everyone who reads and teaches the Bible doesn't get it right.  Since it is authored by man with its embellishments and to a degree superfluously writings the reader/ student should study with an open mind and read the Bible with the five suggestions mentioned by the author, Mark Roncace  .

.
3253941
What I find interesting is that you don't see JW writting material about other religions let along blasting these religions for their beliefs either. I am not one of JW, but my wife is and after 35 years of marriage I have not been brain washed, etc.  In fact most of our friends respect my wife believes and more often say how wrong they were about JW once they truly find out what JW believe based on bible teachings.  Also, JW are simply following Matthew 24:14 "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come. This was a command from Jesus.  We should always be respectful of others and pray for them so that they can come to accurate knowledge of God's purpose for mankind.
1464078
Bart Ehrman is normally writing with polemical intent against his erstwhile evangelical Christian brethren.  In this book, however, he argues against those who sit on his side of the theological spectrum - but even farther toward the edge than he does.  That is, he's writing against "Jesus Mythicists" - those who believe that a historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed.  (They may be so far to the left as to actually have fallen off the spectrum.)

In the book's introduction, Ehrman describes himself as "an agnostic with atheist leanings."  This is no surprise to anyone who knows him.  Neither therefore should it surprise anyone who knows him when he explains his purpose in writing this book which he gives in its conclusion:

"In my view humanists, agnostics, atheists, mythicists, and anyone else who does not advocate belief in Jesus would be better served to stress that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of modern Christianity than to insist--wrongly and counterproductively--that Jesus never existed. Jesus did exist. He simply was not the person that most modern believers today think he was."

Thus, Ehrman's target is not actually the mythicists.  Rather, it's still the believers among whose ranks he once marched.  Ehrman believes the mythicists have the right goal (destruction of faith in Jesus), but the wrong tactic ("Jesus is a myth and not history").  (I used the term "destruction" advisedly because Ehrman and the mythicists don't just reject faith in Jesus for themselves; they want to spread the word that it's not a good idea for anyone else to have faith in Him either.)

Nevertheless, Ehrman inadvertently does faith a service by demonstrating the folly of denying the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.  In part this is because he dismantles Jesus' mythicism not with the arguments of conservative Christianity but with the arguments of liberal scholarship. The irony in this is rich because the mythicists in many cases have simply followed to their logical conclusion paths originally cut by liberal scholars.  The mythicists must therefore surely feel betrayed by Ehrman.  They were probably much less offended when conservative Christian J. P. Holding wrote his much more substantial refutation of their position - at least they expected as much from someone like Holding.  (See&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shattering-the-Christ-Myth/dp/1606472712/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shattering the Christ Myth</a>.)

It surely cannot be fun to be a Jesus Mythicist.  It must be even less so now that they've been left in the lurch by someone they thought they could count on.