No Sanity in Sanctity
580557
Stereo Sanctity kept me glued page after page; a whirlwind of suspense, perversion and horror plagued my mind. Not only does Mike E. Purfield have the gift of a great storyteller, he describes his characters in a way where I felt myself growing close to them, as if I had just met them at the B.G.C.B to catch a show. And his knowledge of music gives the book a fresh feel. Recognizing many of the bands he mentions, I could easily relate to the lifestyle of the characters in this tale.
I'm definitely proud to add Stereo Sanctity to my collection.
Just when you think the genre is slipping, along comes Mike E. Purfield, spooks blazing and ready to open a new porthole to the world or Horror.
456324
This DVD succinctly points out that those who take the Bible as the absolute word of God are largely responsible for the fear and hatred of homosexuals. They interpret the Bible literally, refusing to understand or even acknowledge that it was written by man, for man, and that if they take the passages regarding homosexuality literally they are being hypocritical -- would they stone their daughter to death if she was not a virgin before marriage or would they sell her into slavery, for instance? -- two things that the Bible instructs them to do. In other words, these literalists pick out what they agree with and ignore that which they do not agree with. If they love God so much that they want to follow what they interpret as His absolute word then whatever happened to love thy neighbor as thyself? Don't they understand that God made man and that God would never have made an entire group of people and put them on this earth for the sole purpose of being targets for discrimination and hatred? I wish this DVD could be aired publicly, on a humongous screen and at high volume, at every anti-Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender(GLBT)demonstration. It would expose the haters for what they really are -- hypocrites.
4207314
I don't care how allegedly knowledgeable the author of this book is. After I started reading it I checked up on him and found he was a liberal who said things like Jesus "had a nervous breakdown in the garden of Gethsemane." If you are a lukewarm Catholic or atheist, this book might be of some interest to you. But if you are seriously interested in personal holiness and avoiding the fires of hell, I'd steer clear of this book. It will do nothing to grow your faith.
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.
3497584
I picked up this book after someone at work - a clerk - recommended it highly. She knows my wife and I are active in our church, so she felt we would love it. Quite the opposite - we were very disturbed by it. We both found it to be dreadful.

Supposedly, this boy has a near death experience. According to his father, the boy sees heaven. And the father CLAIMS his boy could not have ever heard some of the Revleations-based content that is in the book - implying that the boy only got that information from his experience. Really? He lives with a fundamentalist preacher and he never could have heard that stuff? Is the public REALLY that gullible?

I'm very familiar with near death experiences. I have been studying the phenomenon for years. This supposed excursion to heaven has almost NOTHING in common with reports from children whose parents are NOT fundamentalist preachers - or with adults. I was stunned reading this book after all the hype and hoopla. It reads as dishonest; as a fabrication borne of a POSSIBLE NDE experienced years before the telling of the story and SERIOUS pollution of any memory by listening to a fundamentalist preacher father.

What I have learned from MY patients who coded and were resuscitated - those who had NDEs - is that what religion you are does not matter. What your belief system is does not matter. MANY of the things religious people divide humanity by don't matter AT ALL. What matters is kindness to others. What matters is how well we love our fellow man. What matters is helping each other, trying to make the world a better place, and loving ourselves. What religion we are does not matter; God didn't create religion. We did.

What bothered me the most was the clear message that if you "don't have Jesus" you are doomed to hell. Every religion has its adherents who are convinced their own brand of their own religion is the "one true religion" and everyone else is going to hell. Just a minimal application of logical thought should be all one needs here! How is it possible that it just so HAPPENS that this boy was lucky enough to be born into a family with a narrow-minded, fundamentalist father of the ONLY version of the ONLY religion that will keep you out of hell? It isn't.

Fundamentalist in ANY religion excludes most of humanity from the promise of a blissful eternity. How can ANY thinking person buy this? It is absurd. There are thousands of reports of near death experiences where the person was in the presence of a loving God... who loves them AS IS. People of EVERY religion and atheists alike - it matters not. Women who have had abortions, gay people, transexuals, all those things that make "Christians" judge others... people who have NDEs tell us NONE of this matters to God. They tell us we all are loved AS IS and all that stuff doesn't even MATTER.

I'm a Christian. I'm a husband, a father, a grandfather, a deacon in my church... and a THINKER. This book is the antithesis to thought and reason. That is the nature of fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism separates us - religion should unite people!

Shame on Todd Burpo for putting his own VERY narrow, fundamentalist religious views into this book and pretending that his boy could never have heard about some of these Bible stories. SERIOUSLY?! It's dishonest - and he knows it. This book is shameful.

Stick to other ridiculous relgious tracts - The Watchtower or Chick Publications. They're a lot cheaper and will eat up less of your time.

So sorry this terrible book is getting so much attention. Shame on Burpo.
753415
The Pearls have
1. No formal religious training whatsoever
2. No formal training in child development whatsoever

Also, keep in mind that Barnes and Noble and Borders refuse to carry their books anymore because of the promotion of child abuse

And that's exactly what the Pearls do. These books are dangerous and do nothing more than advocate child abuse by taking bible verses out of context to fit their own agenda.
There's nothing "biblical" about child abuse.
Didn't Jesus teach us to love, forgive, and be kind to one another? Or does that somehow exclude children?
The methods the Pearls advocate are not only physically and mentally damaging to children, but spiritually damaging as well.
A much better alternative from a Christian POV is The Complete Book of Christian Parenting & Child Care: A Medical & Moral Guide to Raising Happy, Healthy Children by Dr. William Sears and Martha Sears.
Children are for loving. nurturing, and teaching, but never for hurting.
What kind of world do we live in that it's still even up for discussion whether or not it's ok to hit BABIES? Babies are innocent amd helpless, and depend on their parents to protect them, nurture them and love them.
Contrary to what these people say, your baby is not "manipulating" you by crying. They are simply communitcating in the only way they know how. They express "love me", "feed me", "hold me", "I'm scared", "I'm cold", "I'm wet" etc. by crying. If the Pearls had any background in child development they would kno this. If one does not wish to attend to their child when their child needs them, then that individual probably should have thought twice before becoming a parent. Corporal punishmentis the easy way out, it may stop an unwanted behavior in the short term, but in the long term the effects have been shown to be negative. The message it gives is that violence is an acceptable way to get someone to do what you want.
I relaize that some people believe in spanking, and even though I do not, I would not call someone a bad parent for spanking their kids, but what the pearls advocate is not an open hand on a clothed bottom for running into traffic, it's pre-meditated abuse wrapped up in the guise of religion.
The spirit of the child is for nurturing not for breaking. Children are Gods precious creations, not monsters out to get you. They need to be treated with care, love, and kindness. No one is perfect, not parents, not kids, but if we want to be truly pleasing to God, love, forgiveness, and gentlenes is the way to go. Violence is never the answer.
I would urge anyone who loves their children to stear clear of these people and their books. I'm ashamed of Amazon for even carrying their products, and I will honestly think twice before ordering from Amazon again.
1878296
I bought this book for my sister, thinking it would be a blessing to her as it apparently has been for so many others, based on their reviews. I read the book (I haven't given it to my sister yet). To the point. On page 132, Sheila makes a statement that has to be regarded as rank heresy. "When Eve, made in the image of God, reached outside the life he had lavished on her, we all fell. Now the whole planet limps and weeps along." I will not get into the theological ramifications of this grave error here. We must be clear on this one point though; we did not all fall when Eve sinned. It is because of Adam's sin that sin, death and judgment came into the world. The Bible never, anywhere says that in Eve the race fell. Romans chapter 5 makes it patently clear that it is in Adam, not Eve, that all sin. Christ is the second Adam, not the second Eve. Adam, not Eve, is the type or pattern that is to come. Please read Romans chapter 5. This is no light matter. We cannot allow this type of loose interpretation to go unchecked. I hope somehow that Sheila Walsh corrects this error.
4513210
This book tries very hard to make the case that in order to be a good Christian, one MUST invite aggressive, violent, and utterly alien foreigners to live in peaceful, crime-free small towns in midwestern America. This sounds suspiciously like something utterly unlike Christianity to me. It sounds like the precepts of Cultural Marxism put forth by the Frankfurt School. Google "Who Stole Our Culture" to find out more about this subversive school of thought which has been destroying traditional American values since the 1930s. It is not charity for the poor that motivates this agenda, because the poor could be looked after in their own lands without causing the violent, disruptive culture clash now underway in formerly peaceful small towns across the upper midwest. No, the destruction wrought by these aggressive, intolerant, Islamic Africans IS the agenda. It may be clothed once in altruism and again in a cassock, but the effect is undeniable and perfectly predictable to anyone with half an ounce of common sense. We are expected to change our culture for them, we are expected to bow to precepts of their sharia law. What next? Are we supposed to mutilate our daughters' genitals and make them wear burkhas unless we expect them to be raped? This has gone too far already... these authors are traitors to their own people and culture, and anyone who agrees passively with their subversive agenda is just as guilty as they are. "They" are most assuredly NOT "us," and we have our OWN culture and heritage to look after, and should look upon anyone wishing to destroy it as our blood enemies.

1 Timothy 5:8 - "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Certainly charity does not end with one's own, but to deny one's own their safety, their culture, their identity, and their posterity, and use "Christian charity" as an excuse is no charity at all... it is in fact a knife in the backs of all Germanic American children.
2920155
Frankly, I'm unimpressed. The author claims to know may things he does not. Firstly, he's obvioulsy working from a 20th/21st century perspective. Would going through a Wendy's drive through make sense coming from a First Century source? No. Of course not. So we must read the Scriptures from their appropriate context. He fails to do so. Secondly, his arguement that God cannot be trinity and unity is based on being and not persons. Let's use the St. Patrick's example. A three-leaf clover has three separate and different leaves, right? But it's still one three-leaf clover, right? Three leaves, one essence of a three-leaf clover. Three persons, one divine essence.
3910284
As we consider the Biblical topic of hell no one desires to either go there or have anyone else go to such a place. This book is not written from a research perspective but out of an emotional appeal. Because the writer does not want to believe there is an eternal hell or in a God who would confine a sinner to such a place, he seeks to twist passages, sources and Greek out of context.
The writer is not a reader of Greek. Clearly he is a novice.  He acts as if language can be viewed simply on the lexical level thus avoiding the more important aspect of language analysis and that is syntax.
Some such gross errors are the confusion of the adjective aionion with the noun aion. He mixes up the statistics of the words by lumping them together.
He tried to find justification for translating Kolasis as "remedial punishment" yet the most authoritative lexicon of the NT (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich),  defines the word as "punishment."
This book is so devoid of sound reason, good exegesis and proper research that it frustrates the honest reader. I spent my life studying the grammar of the Greek New Testament and the theology contained therein and I must say I am appalled with what Beauchemin has done with in this book. Those untrained in Greek and theology will be swept away but the distortions and emotional appeal that this book embraces. A book needs to be written to dismantle his arguments piece by piece. The sad thing I see is that apostasy often begins within the church. In the end people and lives are the collateral damage.
3216507
I'm really disappointed in Sam Harris this time. I thought his other books were succint and poignant, but this is a foray into oblivion. The book simply blurs the line between science fact and opinion as Harris attempts to do the impossible: come up with a scientific basis for a moral code. Now everyone knows, incliding Harris, that this is impossible, because doing the right thing means "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" not "when in Rome, do what you think the Romans ought to do." Harris once again proves that the bottom line is that atheists in the Occidental world have no real basis for their a moral code except for being immersed in the same religion-based morality as the rest of us, and that science cannot determine anything, it can only observe some empirical phenomena.
3194334
This idea is similar to the main thesis in "Not A Fan" (by Kyle Idleman) which has also come out recently.  For anyone who grew up as I did in a time of punitive religion, with sins in neat categories of mortal and venial, with purgatory looming just after death even if you had confessed everything and tried really, really hard to be good, and with the idea that Jesus is crucified all over again (and it's YOUR fault!) every Sunday at Mass, this book is going to be like a lifeline thrown to a drowning person.

Never mind the theological quibbles-- just read the Bible!  The message of faith, love, and forgiveness is in there for anyone to see.  Jesus said "I have not come to judge the world, but to save it."  Simple.  Impossible to misunderstand, right?  Wrong.  The Church has consistently and deliberately misunderstood it almost from the outset.  I say almost from the outset because I date the day when the Church lost its holiness as the same day that Constantine decided that he was going to make it the official religion of the Roman Empire, with himself as its secular head.  Suddenly the idea of Christ the suffering servant vanished, and in its place came hierarchy modeled on the pagan world, a growing distance between clergy and laity, a monstrous set of rules and myths and layers of clergy who (let's face it) considered themselves far better than the people they were supposed to serve.  In fact, some of the laity was immediately reduced to the status of "non-person"-- namely, women and illiterates, peasants, and anyone who could not be relied upon to endow the Church with as much lucre as he was capable of scraping together.  So Christianity in the West was treated to such abominations as rood screens so that half the time the congregation could not even see what was going on up on the altar, where the priest was doing mysterious things on a raised platform with his back to the congregation, indulgences; the worship of bits of bone and wood; a cast of saints that made pagan pantheons seem sparse; the amassing of enormous wealth; and the Church's even darker train of antisemitism, abuse, hubris, and pharisaical self-congratulation.

There are people who are happy only when fenced inside a thicket of rules and rituals and meaningless dogma, but these people are not Christians.  A Christian has only two rules: love God with everything in you, and love your neighbor, and take care of him/her as you would take care of yourself. Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, a one-on-one relationship with our "Creator, Defender, Redeemer, and Friend."

So if this book, and its cousin "Not A Fan" can bring even one person to an understanding of the love and forgiveness immediately available to him/her, it was worth the time and trouble taken to write it.  A wonderful, inspiring, and true message, one guaranteed to send any true seeker to his/her grateful knees in love, repentance, and thanksgiving.

I found Christ quite unexpectedly, or rather I should say, I found that Christ had always been there, but I had been blinded from childhood by this same impenetrable thicket of rules, rituals, and punishment, and was incapable of understanding Him and Who He is.  "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; and for anyone who bids Me enter, I will come in and will dine with him, and he with Me." What a beautiful promise! This book will tell you how to open that promised door and begin your everlasting friendship with your Savior.
3207931
Positive reviews for this book are an indicator of the complete lack of understanding of philosophy in culture today. Frank asks Philosophy 101 questions and comes up with bizarre answers. He goes on a rant about not being able to define the word significance, then ends the chapter with it is if I say it is. I wouldnt mind that so much if he didn't rail on Dawkins and Dennett for things they haven't said. He quotes the Bible and others, but when he speaks against atheists, he puts thoughts in their heads and tells us they are wrong. The New Atheists never said that there is no meaning, okay Frank?

I find it suspicious that he doesnt know the basics of how science works. He says all science is circular, showing a lack of knowledge of the last 400 years that have demonstrated the premises of the scientific method to be completely workable and in a very real sense, true.  I was starting to believe he was insincere until he said, my hunch is that things were beautiful before we were around to observe them. Of course they were, but that says nothing about God or materialism. We evolved to be aware of beauty, to reflect on it, and to create words and art to describe it. That all this happened without a creator does not make it meaningless.

The redeeming quality of the book is his liberal Bible studies. And he admits that he is cherry picking. I admire that. He quotes someone saying Christianity should be reforming itself. I agree. But he comes up with weird stuff, like saying the Enlightenment was an empathy time bomb set by Jesus. In other words, after the Kings and Popes had their power taken away, after people were allowed to think for themselves without threat of torture, then he says it was Christianitys idea to be inclusive and multi-cultural. Wrong.
3990108
This is billed as a spirited exchange between a believer and a non-believer, but really it's much less than that.  Eco is a barely-lapsed Catholic intellectual, and as he says himself the basic structure of his thinking is still very much based in Catholicism.

Except for the final brief pair of chapters, the book consists of Eco asking Martini to talk about the Church's answer to something, and Martini answering with the Catholic party line.

And because this is the Father of Semiotics and a Catholic Cardinal, the language is full of fifty-thousand-dollar words and content-free metaphors.  Here is Eco, for instance, perhaps imitating one of those online Random Postmodern Text Generators:

"Christianity invented History, and it is in fact a modern incarnation of the Antichrist that denounces History as a disease. It's possible that secular historicism has understood history as infinitely perfectible -- so that tomorrow we improve upon today, always and without reservation, and so that in the course of the same history God reconstitutes himself and in a manner of speaking educates and enriches himself. But the entire secular world is not of the ideological view that through history we understand how to look at the regression and folly of history itself."

Say what?  Secular historicism has understood that God educates himself?  You don't say!

And when Eco asks how the Church knows when human life begins, Martini's answer is that it's at the moment of conception, because that is when there is a new being with a face.  Which must be a metaphor for something (since a fertilized egg is way to small to have a face), but we're left to guess for ourselves exactly what it's supposed to be a metaphor for.

In the final exchange, Martini finally asks a question of Eco rather than vice-versa.  The question itself is nothing impressive, just the usual "how do atheists justify their morality without an invisible friend in the sky to do it for them?"; but Eco's answer is solid and almost clearly stated.  There's nothing all that special, he points out, about basing your morality on a deity (believers are just as prone to immorality as anyone else), and our own desire to be treated well and our natural tendency to empathy make a fine alternative.

So anyway.  Most of the book is throwaway concepts couched in needlessly elaborate prose, but at least it's short.  The last chapter is worth a read.

(These reviews really need to be combined with those for the non-digital editions; presumably they are the same book!)
2513422
Regardless of the disclaimers MacArthur makes saying that he does in fact teach faith alone for salvation, he does not. Forcefully adding works into the semantic value of the word "pistis" [belief or faith] is no different than openly teaching faith plus works like unto Rome. God offers justification freely, and it does not "cost us everything" as MacArthur contends. It cost Christ His life. It costs us NOTHING because He paid for it. When a dad buys his son food to eat, does he then expect his child to pay for it? No amount of pejorative language such as "no-lordship teaching" could change the fact that justification is by Faith Alnoe in Jesus Christ Alone. Our job is to preach a Gospel of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, and to call believers to a life of discipleship. Not to challenge the salvation of believers. Thankfulness because of security and desire to hear "well done good and faithful servant" from our Lord at His coming is to drive believers to a life of good works, not a lack of security and fear of the lake of fire. Teaching such as MacArthur's will only lead to despair in the heart of anyone who buys into it. Only self delusion about one's own works could prevent it.
  Not only this, but believing what is in this book will in fact destroy the possibility to live the kind of life Christ intends us to live. Trying harder in the flesh is all that is left when assurance of salvation is taken away.  How can you completely rely on the power of the Spirit if you can't even be sure you have the Spirit until you've persevered until the end of life (as MacArthur would have us believe)?  Someone who has at one time believed the true gospel, and then adopted MacArthur's false one is doomed to a Romans 7 life.  Romans 6 and 8 will become completely unattainable.  What's more is that MacArthur's gospel is a false gospel and a false gospel will not save anyone from anything. This book is truly horrendous.  If you read this book, read it watchfully and check the contexts (including the audience) of verses he quotes. His exegetical fallacies will show themselves to be self-evident.  I recommend Bob Wilkin's book Confident in Christ instead. In Contrast with MacArthur, Dr. Wilkin treats the Scriptures with the respect and care they deserve.
2023212
Another in a long line of books with the goal of finding the devil in everything.  The author presents his arguments to those who seem to already be fundamentalist Christians.  In a sense he is preaching to the choir.  Now for rational, free thinking folks there is absolutely nothing you haven't heard before and certainly nothing to convince you to check your closet every night for the Biblical boogey-man.
3480513
You write this like how a Catholic believes in purgatory before he can enter heaven. Hogwash. Jesus loves ALL HIS CHILDREN THE SAME. true, some may have greater rewards than others, some might have made it in by the hair on their chin, in shame. But, The Father, nor Christ throws a child into outer darkness to be purged. I had a lot of respect for you two, but you are dabbling into conscription, wishy washy stuff. The outer darkness is hell, or a compartment of hell. There is no place in True Christianity for Mormon, Catholic, other cultish religions that believe in that no.sense. this was a big disappointment to me, and my friends at church who read it said the same thing......."Am I going to into outer darkness now"...I thought your job was to bring forth the truth. You're scaring people into questioning their salvation. I've been a fan for years now, but if this is the way you're going to go, second guessing scripture, than I want no part of it. These times of sorrowr we're in now, with all the pressures, ISIS, EBOLA, BEHEADINGS ON US SOIL, A PRES. WHO CAN'T LEAD, ARE HARD ENOUGH, THEN YOU BRING THAT JUNK INTO THE MIX? Go back to studying.