The 'review' posted by Twizzler is gay-bashing homophobic hate speech. I dont read reviews to be exposed to bile. Amazon should screen this type of crap on the grounds that it is simply not a review of the book but a meritless screed by someone with his or her head in a place where no reading can take place. This is the worst 'review' I have read in years and needlessly offensive. That's is aside from being something I never thought I would read, viz anti-Swedish.
M. Bagge's whining would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
I do agree with you on a point. Amazon should better screen crank reviews, Patrik Mondolfi's as well as Twizzler's. And anti-Christian crank reviews of the Patrik Mondolfi type predominate on this website (if you don't believe me, just click on any of the various Bibles sold here and look at some of the one starred socalled "reviews")
So one crank called another a "Sweety Boy" and it made you so distressed that you felt the need to cry "Homophobia!"
Mr. Bagge, where was your anger when this Swedish reviewer said: "Religious people make me sick, and Americans do to?"
I guess I'd take another perspective on this: I'd rather---as long as there isn't vulgarity of a sort that I don't want my child to read---see the anti-Christian crank reviews, even though I'm an evangelical pastor and author. Why? Because I want to have the freedom to post critical reviews of such drivel as _The Da Vinci Code_ and of the faulty scholarship in Bart Ehrman's books. If they remove the person who spouts anti-Christian ideas, they'll eventually be removing what I say too.
You and everyone else who takes the Da Vinci Code so seriously would do well to look up the definition of "fiction" and realize that you all are much ado about nothing. That and terribly self-righteous...something Jesus vehemently warned against during his ministry on Earth. Or is that part of the Bible you might call drivel?
I do not have a problem with anyone posting a "serious" review that is critical of orthodox Christianity or of anything else. I enjoy reading points of view different from my own.
The type of "review" I'm talking about is the kind that is posted just to vent anger and frustration for the book, its author, or at other reviewers. What I call a "crank review" is like some of the more recent 1-Star reviews you see posted here for this book, as well as the now deleted 5-Star post by Patrik Mondolfi where all he seemed to have to say --other than admitting to not even reading this book-- was that "Religious people make me sick and Americans do too!" Both of these types of "reviews" are a disservice to this website and its users. They contribute nothing to the forum and are a nuisance cluttering up the site.
I believe Amazon installed this Discussion Forum so people would have the opportunity to speak their minds and voice opinions beyond just reviewing a book itself. The problem is that most people who like to post 1-Star mock reviews and what I call "5-Star retaliatory reviews" like to do so under multiple phony names. Here, you must use your real name and few of these people have the courage to identify themselves for what they have to say.
As a novel I don't take the DA VINCI CODE seriously. I also know very well the definition of the word "fiction."
The problem is that there are many Americans out here who ARE taking the DA VINCI CODE seriously. People who have very little knowledge of history or theology. Many such people read the author's note at the beginning of the DA VINCI CODE, which claims the book is based on FACT, and accept it as that. Furthermore, there has also been a massive media/marketing campaign over the last last three years for this book. Let's not forget that soon there will also be a major motion picture based on this book. So don't tell us we are all "much ado about nothing." Only recently we've seen chaos raging across the world over a few cartoons of Muhammad (PBUH). A man who the rioters themselves would tell you they believe was only a man. Considering that we Christians believe Jesus to be God Himself, I think we deserve a little credit that we're only voicing a bit of anger and resentment.
As for looking up word definitions... You would do well to look up a few of your own. Start with "condescension" and "patronizing."
If you are going to post critical reviews then would you please give the reasons for your opinion rather than just passing along nasty comments like "drivel as _ The Da Vinci Code" and "the faulty scholarship in Bart Ehrman's books". The practice of dropping disparaging comments in passing does nothing to contribute to the discussion and only reflects negatively on ones own character.
Having listened to many of Dr. Ehrman's lectures, and finding his notes and sources to be broad and apparently well researched I would be interested if you know of sources that he has overlooked.
Hello there! I am writing, as your post caught my attention. So, I ended up going through all of Twizzler's 'reviews'. Did you happen to read through all four pages of his reviews? It goes from Chrisitianity to Islam to PORNO! Need I say more? Take his words only as words, they really mean nothing. For me, he and his words are a lesson in COMPASSION, which this worlds needs a lot more of.
Well, I posted my review earlier on under my real name, b.breen.
While I voiced disagreement with some of his conclusions I gave the book 4 stars and certainly advocate people reading it. I think I addressed the basis for where I disagreed as well and referenced other scholars.
There's no question that public forum such as Amazon attracts many reviews that frankly are pretty shallow and seem to be read by others and voted on as to whether they agree with the position that reviewer takes in terms of agreement or disagreement with the basic premises of the book.
I prefer to take it in another manner, and that is whether the review gives insight into the subject matter of the book and interacts with it in such a manner that a reasonable person, whether sympathetic or not to the premise, would come away with a better understanding of the book and whether it is worth the time and effort to read.
With that as the measure, frankly, there's plenty of drivel coming from both the supporting and non-supporting factions. I choose to reward those reviewers who put some effort and thought into their review and will give a helpful vote to either point of view, as long as there is substance there.
I can tell I'm in the minority in that regard many times though.
It's not just about the sources he may have overlooked; it's about his conclusions. They are non sequitur in that he assumes if he can prove one scripture was added that we cannot trust a doctrine that is supported by that scripture. In fact, he has not documented a single debated passage that would change any primary Christian doctrine. He is at best a shoddy researcher and at worst an intentional deceiver. And, yes, I've read all his books.
He does have some non-sequitors. The primary one I note is his assertion that inerrency and inspiration require perfct preservation. I do think he rather overplays his hand in that regard.
In terms of his scholarship I'm not as critical as what I think you are. I didn;t find it all that difficult and nothing particularly new, but then, I have a degree in Biblical Literature. What Ehrman would say he is addresssing is that there is a significant portion of the Christian Church that places great reliance upon fundamentalist docrines of inerrency and inspiration who really have no clue about where the Bible comes from and its characteristics and history in that regard. Sadly, many churches choose to ignore these issues rather than address them.
That's why ehrman's book is a big deal. He's brought those issues out of academia and created a big impact by explaining these issues in laymans's terms.
In fact, in many ways, it is fundamentalists and evangelicals who have created Ehrman's impact by not addressing these issues from the pulpit and in the Churches by teaching people better.
Ehrman is pretty much on th emoney with his facts. It's how he uses those facts that gives me pause. That's why I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 stars. But I don't fault him for raising the issues. It's about time these were addressed within the Church and a little bit of thinking and teaching brought in instead of teaching blind faith and relying upon ignorance in the pews to keep it all running.
I'm a committed evangelical Christian and I've never been happy with that approach. Ehrman is doing us a favor if we see it that way and actually respond with our scholarship and put it in a form that other's can read and understand.
I agree with you one hundred percent. My problems are with his conclusions - not his facts. I just wish the whole world would require of themselves what they want the Christian groups to require of their members. What I mean is this, the world would like to say that Christians should not believe the doctrine of inerrancy if they have not put in the effort to research the history of Biblical translation and preserverance. How about this: Let's flip that coin back and say that you are not allowed to 'believe' in evolution unless you've fully researched the facts. I ask evolutionists, very often, to tell me why they believe it's true and to give me three or four evidences. They, without fail, cite at least one evidence that has been proven as a hoax or a lie and they don't even know it. This INCLUDES SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS.
How can the world require of us the due diligence that it will not perform itself. Now that I've said that, I believe we Christians should indeed be 'read up' on these things, but I will not be challenged by others who themselved will not taste of the tree of knowledge.
Quite simply, considering the duration of the socio-political domination of the Christian church over occidental society (~1500 yrs, give or take), vs. the duration during which people could freely state their opposition or doubts over orthodoxy without paying a life-long (or life ending) penalty (perhaps as short a time as from the end of the McCarthy era to today, ~50 yrs), it's not surprising that people hold religious followers and their beliefs to a higher standard than "competing" secular beliefs. It's called backlash, and right or wrong, it is to be expected. Public events in "recent" memory like the Scopes Monkey Trial will feed these expectations. There is a common myth propagated amongst lay Christians that Christiandom has been persecuted it's entire existence, and always suffered at the hands of others. Even Tom DeLay and others (have the arrogance to) talk about a "war on Christianity" today, as if the apathy and skepticism towards all religions common in 1st and 2nd world countries is somehow uniquely an attack on Christians. It's makes a great rallying cry (being persecuted always does), but a period of persecution shorter than the duration of American slavery (I don't claim to know exactly when the early Christians went from victims to victors) won't win huge sympathy tears from society at large. So how does my poorly informed exposition tie back into this discussion? Perhaps not well, but I think I was trying to say that many of the semi-educated "us poor Christians" reviews will strike a nerve with the equally-emotional semi-educated secular side (or vice-versa) and lead to posts lacking in content. I'm just surprised that people are surprised. The often underrated American songwriter John Mellencamp once sang "I know that there's a balance, I see it every time I swing past"
Please check the other part of this forum for a basic outline of my response to Ehrman's scholarship. Next year, I will likely have a book-length response out entitled, _Misquoting Truth_.
You can find my response to _The Da Vinci Code_ in two books--_The Da Vinci Codebreaker_ (Bethany House, 2006) and _Answers to The Da Vinci Code_ (Rose Publishing, 2004), as well as in lectures that I've given around the country on these topics. I will gladly send a link to those MP3s if you are interested.
With all this complaining about abusive reviews and such, did anyone notice the "report this" or "report abuse" links? Those flag the product review for amazon to screen specially! If something bothers you, use them! :P
Reviews and posts are just words, only words, a bit like the bible that was based upon a long history of oral mythology that pleased the pagans and allowed the cult of christianity to run rampant. Goodness, lets not question anything, except the words we disagree with. It seems that a bit of stalking is going on if you must read all of someone's other reviews to condemn only one of them. Perhaps your words do not stand on their own, either.
If you have an issue about the review then hit "report abuse" or ignore it. I don't think amazon can control the thousands of reviews and discussions on thousands of products. They will remove it if you report it. Putting "Homophobia is OK with amazon" as a discussion topic is a bit unproductive and ridiculous don't ya think?
This is just what we need: less freedom of speech.
I you don't like what someone says, voice your opinion. Are we so stupid that we have to be monitored by the thought police? If someone says something blatantly cruel, we can all chime in and fault the poster in question.