Most Helpful Customer Reviews
51 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fascinating History, August 8, 2004
This book was as enjoyable to read as it was eye-opening. Because of 9-11, we are well familiar with the faction in Islam that believes in killing the so-called infidels. What I did not know was how deeply entrenched in killing non-believers that the original Jews and Christians were, as well; often under the supposed encouragement and blessing of The One and Only True God.
The point of God against the Gods is not to condemn either Christianity or Judaism. Far from it. Rather, it makes the compelling point that the victory of monotheism over paganism in many respects may not have been a good thing; largely because of the tendency toward intolerance and persecution that the belief--my God is the One and Only True God--tends to breed in the minds of believers. This is a novel, provocative point to ears that have grown so used to hearing that monotheism is superior to paganism, and that paganism is nothing more than a superstitious hodgepodge whose defeat was a blessing to the world. But the author makes his point in a calm, reasoned, and balanced manner. In many respects, I found myself persauded. However, he certainly does not claim that paganism is totally innocent in world history either. It has its share of dark moments, too.
This book is written in an easy, almost conversational manner, which allows it to provide a lot of fascinating history in a very interesting manner. I thoroughly enjoyed every page. At the same time, I also acquired insights and facts about the history of the three major monotheistic religions and paganism that I was not aware of before. The chapters on the Roman Empire and its Caesars, especially Julian, were fascinating. God against the Gods is highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
44 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Book with an Agenda -- Name One that Doesn't Have One, March 24, 2004
I had to write after reading the negative reviews below. It always amazes me how people can claim to have read a book, and then describe something that bears only a passing resemblence to the actual text. Seth, for example, contends GAtG only covers the period of Constantnie to Julian. Since Constantine doesn't show up until page 119, I'm assuming he skipped ahead to the parts he wanted to complain about. The book actually begins in ancient Egypt, when a Pharoh tried to remove the polythestic gods of his culture and set up the first monotheistic religion. It then moves on to Moses and the other Jewish prophets and their attempts to keep the sometimes straying Jews (golden calf, anyone), in line with the monothestic faith they wanted all their tribe to follow. It then discusses the waxing and waning fortunes of the Jewish faithful (and not so faithful) as their interactions with Romans (and polytheism), shift and move back and forth between rigorist monotheism and comprimise with the pagan, polythesitic culture of the classical age. While all this is happening, Christianity is introduced, and we get the first case of a monotheistic faith battling a monotheistic faith -- Jews following Jesus against Jews who don't. And so on, as Christianity spreds into Rome, but refuses to obey the laws of respecting ALL Gods -- which was considered a civic obligation of the Roman citizen. Constanine shows up after all this is clearly laid out. Seth claim that this is a book "against" Christianity reflect his bias -- Kirsch clearly has it in for Monotheism in general, and that includes Judaism, and Islam. He admits up front that if there's going to be religion, he admires the accepting polytheism of classical Roma and Greece. Monotheistic faiths, he contends, don't just say someone who dosn't worship the right god is wrong, but that he must be "corrected" into believing the right way to believe, because all other beliefs are wrong. If that means torture or death on the path to redemption, so be it. (By the way, Kirsch points out the ways the polytheists persecuted Christians and Jews. He suggests, though, that the persecutions weren't as horrific as Christian and Jewish historians wrote, and cites other historians as agreeing with him.) Meawhile, Eric suggests that "secularist liberals will see it as a confirmation that religion is inherently evil and stultifying; the religious conservatives will see it as a distorted attack on the remaining source of morality in the modern world." Um, no. I'm a liberal Catholic, and I found the book fascinating. I'm particularly fascinated by the way I can see a parallel between religion in the United States and the polytheism of classical Rome and Greece. These days, people in this country move between denominations, switch faiths as their desires and needs dictate, or add Yoga, crystals and horoscopoe readings even as they go to Church, Temple or a Mosque every week. I'd offer that this flexibility (as opposed to living under Islamic hardliners), is a blessing, and something I hadn't considered as an echo of ancient practices (a new polytheism), until I read this book. It gave me a new way of looking at the world around me. Could I give it less than 4 stars? Nope.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Repeating a theme, December 1, 2004
Paganism, Kirsch reminds us, has been far distorted beyond its original meaning. Even our common dictionaries use only pejorative words to describe it - "heathen", "hedonist", "non-religious". Kirsch wants us to understand that "no self-respecting pagan" would apply such definitions to his own forms of worship. "Paganism" has been the subject of harsh propaganda by the monotheistic "faithful". These agents of repression viewed worship of deities other than the "One True God" as just cause for the vilest forms of curtailment, cruelty and murder. Although we've suffered many centuries of Christian propaganda against the "pagans", Kirsch is able to sift through the evidence to provide a more reasonable picture. The pagan world had its blemishes, but in his view, there's no match for the destructive record of Christianity.
Kirsch's opening subject may surprise most readers. He examines the effort of Egyptian pharaoh Akehnaton to establish a monotheistic faith. Akhenaton's project was to replace the pantheon of Egyptian deities with a "One True God" in the figure of Aton, the sun god. Given Egypt's environment, it was a logical choice. In true monotheistic style, one that would be followed by other monotheists, Akhenaton destroyed the images, references and temples of the previous corps of deities. Naturally, there was resentment among the populace, but a pharaoh's power was too absolute for a successful counterrevolution. Although unsuccessful in establishing a lasting monotheistic empire, Akehnaton is recorded as the first ruler to make the attempt.
The next attempt was the half-hearted endeavour by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Kirsch closely examines the myth of Constantine's "vision" at the battle of Milvian bridge and the emperor's actions after the victory. Remaining unbaptised until shortly before his death, Constantine is shown as using Christianity to enhance his own power as a ruler. Skillfully playing many factions like political pawns, Constantine was able to keep himself aloof from religious strife. As Kirsch notes, more Christians killed each other than were lost during the "Persecutions" of previous emperors. Christianity bogged down over the "essence" of its founder. The "important dipthong" of Edward Gibbon became the basis for innumerable slaughters, burnings and suppression of dissenting views. It was a portent with continuous repetition. Adolph Hitler's motto of "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuerher" was presaged by Constatine's "One God, One Empire, One Emperor".
Almost in response to Constatine's vague conversion was the career of his nephew, Julian. Kirsch explains how Julian, a survival of the slayings of his relatives as Christian pretender challenged his Christian rivals, was raised in exile. In his training, he encountered classical philosophers. With the "heresy wars" besetting his times, Julian looked with longing at the domestic peace of paganism. The empire might have contended with competitors or "barbarians", but its population remained peaceful over religious issues. Kirsch shows how Julian developed a longing for those days of toleration in the midst of sectarian strife.
At his accession to "the purple", Julian attempted the reverse of Akhenaton's career. Instead of monotheism and "One True God", Julian attempted to restore the traditional deities and reduce the violence of Christian orthodox and "heretical" contenders. It was a formidable task. Kirsch notes that by the time of Juilan's accession there were over 150 sects professing to know "the truth". Such absolutism was unlikely to lead to a reign of tolerance. Julian's only hope was to show that paganism could restore peace, but the Christians were launched on an all-or-nothing struggle for dominance. Regrettably, Julian's restoration of rationality was cut short by a Persian spear in his liver. Inevitably, Kirsch ponders what the history of Europe might have been if Julian had been granted the three decades allotted to Constantine by the Fates. What Kirsch cannot do is more than hope that books such as his might someday lead to the restoration of reason. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
