Mithridaties

Anti Catholic/Christian histrionics.

Revisado: 11-28-24

Rodney Stark: "The Triumph of Christianity" is the book to buy if you are looking for truth and historical facts. I am a crusade scolar and this book is so bad, it should be taken as a model for re-writing history. It is pure anti Christian rhetoric for those who are bitter and jaded. Don't waste your time with this delutional click bait.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

praise God for this encouraging testimony.

Revisado: 10-29-24

Are you discouraged in your marriage? Are you married to a non beliver? Do you struggle with depression or feel like God has burdened you with the wrong kind of challenges in this life? Then this book is for you. Listen to how this man coaps with his challenges and struggles. He is not perfect. But God is. He makes mistakes, but God does not.
I've learned not to rely on my own wisdom, strength, knoledge patience, energy or self... but to abide in the vine for it iis the only way not to wither and die. stay plugged in to the right way, the source of light, love, life, faith and hope. That is the way to thrive in the furnace, to flourish in the presence of your enimies. God is good, and He loves his children. Know it. Live it. and become a light for others who are list. They will never forget the one who brought them a torch when they were lost and surrounded by Darkness. lit you light so shine before men that they might see how you live and give glory to the Father of lights.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

accuracy

Revisado: 10-19-24

I liked the overall performance and story with the blunt truth. no sugar coating crap. the only sad thing is that Audible is removing the book.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

A universe of possibilities is wrenched open by this engaging novel.

Revisado: 07-12-24

I found the characters interesting and their delemas handled in creative ways. The best way to write, is to write about what you know. I can't help but think that the author knows little about building construction/ trades work. But I found this more charming then off putting. Because I know so little about firearms.
But the possibilities for developing a series around this first novel as I'm sure will be the case, has me impatient for the next installment. And the possibilities for spin off series's are endless. I can't wait to see what she comes up with.

No pressure...

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

The performance of the READER was excellent...

Revisado: 07-09-24

The performance was excellent. But the actual book itself was a bit of a disappointment. it was well written and well edited. the flow was good but the personal biases of the author detracted from the academic nature of the subject. I was hoping that the book would look into the TRUE history of the city MORE then just be a rhetorical religious infomercial. So I was disappointed by this book.

The claims about the city of Mecca do not match the archeological evidence. And the cultural myths/religious aspects are not the only line of inquiry to be taken into account when looking for facts. The evidence should controle the narrative not the rhetoric.

For example:

* If the ZamZam well is within a stones throw of THE CENTER OF "the oldest continually occupied city in the world" why was Hagar worried about dieing of thirst? Why not mention that the well is a CISTERN, not a spring... and the cistern went dry 500+ years ago. (In spite of Muhammeds Prophesy) Mention that the ZamZam well is fed by Desalination plants... because it went dry.

* Mention that IN SPITE OF all of the hundreds of "Prophets tombs" that are allegedly in Mecca. Going all the way back to Adam. The oldest archeological artifacts they have found in Mecca, only go back to the 14th century... and they have found no tombs of the prophets. EVEN THOUGH they have dug all of those MASSIVE foundations for those MASSIVE skyscrapers.

*Mention that Mecca does not show up on ANY maps before the 9th century A.D.... Yet it's "the trade of the world"...

** These are only a few examples of the grotesquely biased, sycophantic level, "opinions" that run throughout this novel. In spite of the academic attempts at scolarship this book is better understood as a dairy of a faithful pilgrim rather than an objective study of a historical city.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Typical Gnostic Humanism

Revisado: 10-20-23

It's an interesting topic to be sure. But I believe that in a voyeuristic fascination with the supernatural the author is asking himself the wrong questions. Like a botanist trying to save the life of a jellyfish by aligning its Chakras. this book was about what I would expect from Time, National Geographic or the National Inquirer. Sensationalism by the uniformed and therefor unqualified.
Here are a few helpful hints that I believe could lead the author in a more fruitful direction.

Q: Who/what and what for/why to what purposes are the watchers watching? To know that they are watching isn't enough. To skip over the known facts as if they reveal nothing is foolish. What is your rush to wax monotonous about speculation?

Q: Is a Watcher a "Witness"? perhaps Watchers are witnessing a living example playing out to some Intentional purpose. Can any of that purpose be teased out and supported by the facts?

Q: If the Watchers, stopped watching to instead intervien in events they were only ment to be observers of. Does that in any way help to explain the Flood-Reset? (Not to focus on the reset or the reason for it. But what was the original purpose that the Watchers were intended to watch and why?) To suggest that God created Watchers to be entertained by what God was doing is ridiculous. Its intellectually lazy, unimaginative and unscientific. Curiosity is an intellectual as well as a scientific requirement.

Q: To suggest that all Nephillium are not all evil is reasonable. But buy nature, they are unnatural, corruptions of God's design. The nephillium are outside of God's creation and original purpose. To make way for them, to suggest that they should be embraced as fellow creatures is perverted. Everything might be leagal, but not everything is bennificial.

Comment.
The author would benifit from studying Christian apologetics... His ignorance on Christian teachings is sad and to be generous, his understanding of theology/philosophy is inadequate where they are not totally in error. Take the main passage flogged by the book. Noah was not asked to take a pair of all life or animals on earth or every living... or any of the other misquotes examples of the author. Their were no insects required on the ark because they don't BREATH. There were no fish on the ark for the same reasons genius, and wales don't survive long on boats. Noas directions were clear and specific. Why must you be deliberately inaccurate? If you wish to appeal to reason and ask your audience to take you seriously... don't undercut your credibility with DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the facts to suit your argument. No intellectuals respect that. Who are you appealing to anyways? Or if you're just so ignorant and careless as to make such disgraceful blunders. like a darwinist propigandist, Why write books at all? I could give several examples but the one on Noah's shopping list was adequate.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Interesting but uninspired

Revisado: 09-23-23

The sort of book you might expect from somone who has read the material once or twice and considers themselves an expert... The author didn't even select a reader who could pronounce "deuteronomy" correctly. The author undercuts the sanctity of scripture with the practice of abrigation and aglutination. Permits works righteousness and many other corruptions of the overall message of scripture. As if a man can earn their own salvation and then demand from God the reward that they are due. Reckless foolishness. His views on the miraculous are also ridiculous. The author sounds like a Gnostic. I wish this book was a copy of the actual Talmud instead of some rubes myopic perspective on it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Typical empty headed athiest rubbish

Revisado: 12-19-22

There is no truth, (honest) no certainty or permanecy of knowledge, no purpose, design or meaning... bla bla bla. M. Shermer seems to be insisting that there are absolutely no absolutes. Special pleading for uniquely protective rules for discussion in the hallmark of all athiest Dogmatists who are content to live in the dark because they are afraid of the light. Like a dead fish carried along by the current of thought. They crow loudly about the work that others have done because they cannot produce original work of their own.

Apparently Athiest "science" has confirmed that the life of the athiest is so meaningless that one must invent a purpose/value for oneself. A plesent delution that comforts and makes athiests get warm fuzzies before they become worm food. Being a godless Athiest comes with other benifits too apparently. like moral fluidity, scientific laziness, and a distain for scientists who cultivate standards of discipline. Which might cast doubt on Shermer and his school of dead fish. For in the same way that any dead fish can float down stream and marvel at how far he has swam. just look at the progress! Shermer has derived his unoriginal theory from other peoples work. He has absolutely no new theories of his own, nothing novel or original to contribute to the conversation. Pure unadulterated empty headed twaddle about nothing, theoretically. This book was such a lame snooze fest that I am sorry I wasted any of my time with it. And since reading it I've browsed through his other titles and came to the same conclusion. This man is NOT searching for truth. He is cherry picking his facts to confirm his athiest twaddle. It's sad.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Why? According to Who?

Revisado: 12-13-22

This sounds like "works righteousness". Allah's love, affection, favor, blessings and yes, even salvation can be earned by good works... according to this book, anyways. Can good deeds wash away sin? Is that why the patriarchs sacrificed animals?

Sadly for posteritys sake; the author does not provide references in the narrative itself. Nothing that might support the claims the author makes. I.E. What hadith/sura claims that leaving food on the plate is not just wasteful but feeds the Devil? According to who?
Or
Why should Mohammed be granted "Prophet" status? How has he demonstrated that his message is from Allah? Prophetic? Miracles, for example, "The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the dead are raised to life and the good news is preached to the poor."

Otherwise, we have the testimony of the confirmed prophets on one hand. Their message was known to be approved by God through the dramatic testimony of Signs, wonders, miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy. Which s what separates the true from the false prophets. Along with the testing of the message against scripture, because truth will not contradict truth.

And on the other hand; We have the testimony of Mohammed without the witness of God's endorsement. It's his word alone. Sure, there were many may witness that witnessed Mohammed said "x"... But if it's only Mohammed's or a spirit's inspiration? Without a sign from God who can say where Mohammed's inspiration came from. Mohammed was not God, so we should not grant God's authorship to what Mohammed said. Unless God Himself puts his signature on the prophets message through signs and wonders. I don't know of any that Mohammed can claim and the Author provides no reason for granting divine authorship to the Quran. Or miraculous endorsement of Mohammed's message. That is truly a great concern and must be addressed. look at these examples.


"Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” And because of his words many more became believers. They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” (Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.” The man took Jesus at his word and departed. While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.” Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household believed. This was the second sign Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee."
John 4:39‭, ‬41‭-‬42‭, ‬44‭, ‬46‭-‬54 NIV


"Then the Lord said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow. “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh. Then the Lord said, “If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground.” Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.” The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.” But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.” Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses and he said, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you. You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. But take this staff in your hand so you can perform the signs with it.”"
Exodus 4:6‭-‬17 NIV


"Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true."
[Does Mohammed testify about himself?Or does God give a sign as proof?]
"There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved."
[All Mohammed had was his own testimony.]
"John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. “I do not accept glory from human beings, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
[Does Mohammed testify about himself?Or does God give a sign as proof?]
How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”"
John 5:19‭-‬23‭, ‬30‭-‬47 NIV.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Want to weep with laughter at mispronounced names?

Revisado: 10-28-22

Aside from butchering the Aztec origin story this history was full of new information and a more detailed account of Aboriginal pandemics and plagues I've never found.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña