692 of 861 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back (Paperback)
Around the world, people of faith all have different views of the nature of God, Jesus, and Heaven (not to mention other prophets, gods, and revelations). Of course, these differences exist not just between religions, but also within Christianity itself (there can even be many, many differences between believers within the same congregation and even within families). Even people engaging in similar approaches to biblical interpretation (e.g. literal readings of the King James Version of the Bible) can yield very different conceptions of the nature of Heaven. The result, of course, is that within Christianity, there are thousands and thousands of good-faith understandings of God, of the permanence of the soul, and of Heaven.
Given this, how could it be conceivably possible that Colton Burpo's revelation of the true nature of God and Heaven happened to conform exactly to his father's views on them?
I should note that you do not have to question the existence of God or of Heaven to wonder about this. In fact, I think the question is more troubling for true believers. For real believers, the question is not whether there is a heaven or not (that is beyond question); the real question is whether Mr. Burpo is using his son as a false prophet.
I think people should really consider that before endorsing or supporting this book.
Tracked by 8 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 38 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 3, 2011 4:39:03 PM PDT
Mrs Angela B. says:
In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2011 8:44:23 AM PDT
Sorry Angela, I think it's a story about how a little boy was brain washed and how people used him to write a book. No truth there...
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2011 5:50:55 AM PDT
Jenifer Bloxom says:
Posted on Jun 6, 2011 7:55:05 AM PDT
A. Rosenberg says:
The Bible says that false prophets must be killed, doesn't it?
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2011 7:02:29 AM PDT
Gee whiz Jenifer, you are QUICK!! That would because I have NO faith in the god of christianity. I am impressed that you picked up on that...
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2011 7:03:00 AM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2011 8:15:19 PM PDT
Paul Dembinski says:
May I suggest reading reading Wilfred Cantwell Smith's Faith and Belief and how he demonstrably shows that since the Renaissance and the Age of Scientific Inquiry homo sapiens sapiens has completely distorted how we use the term "belief" versus the importance of faith.
"Do you believe in God? Heaven?" are mere intellectual exercises in simplicity.
Just as St Augustine did not know Greek but bad Latin translations of the NT upon which he completely based Original Sin, so modern man is lost in a dialectical journey in which he long lost the way to the godhead.
Pray we find it again, and our species lives a million generations- that is God's challenge for us.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2011 11:11:30 PM PDT
Tyler Bowden says:
Faith is gullibility, belief is acceptance of a considered truth, and God's challenge for us is to be gullible enough to accept the truth of his existence without question. Our only chance to live millions of generations more is if we let go of such infantile ideas and embrace questioning any authority that would dare ask not to be.
Posted on Jul 1, 2011 8:12:05 AM PDT
Absolutely valid point. I am glad I read your review before purchasing this book. I am always a little suspicious of books like this in the first place, but more so when it conforms to the story teller's original faith and belief system.
Posted on Jul 11, 2011 11:36:29 AM PDT
Amazon Customer says:
I think what may have happened is that when the boy told his snippets of experiences to his father then his father naturally led him on to the conclusions that were unconsciously the father's interpretation. For example, the boy may have said "I met a girl there", and the father leaped to his own logical conclusion that it was the miscarried child. When the story got retold for the book, it was the father's understanding that we got, not the child's. I don't think this was done purposely, its just human nature. Much like the child abuse scandals of the '80's often turned out to be the misleadings of psycholgists interviewing the children.