Read any good books lately? Rate them here

[Shai Hulud]

Case for Christ (a friend convinced me we should read it together; possibly the only book I've literally thrown against a wall).  0.5 out of 5 stars.  As a friend is fond of saying "Lying for Jesus is still lying."

You're Catholic and you didn't like a book about Jesus?

Not when it's a one sided pile of filth.   On another board I posted notes per chapter that totaled over 15,000 words probably.  Strobel... *tries to think of a good descriptor* This book contains many leaps of logic, much mental gymnastics, and several extremely dubious claims.  He has a habit that's almost like a verbal tic, were he speaking instead of writing, where after every softball he lobs at his experts, he describes them like a champion prize fighter or something else, about to beat down the evil skeptical argument. 

He also makes a rather glaring lie of omission in the book.  He presents this quite heavily as the interviews that lead to his conversion, during his investigation in 1980 and 1981, and the last interview takes place in the 1990s, with a guy talking about his wife dying of cancer in 1995. He never mentions, until the post-book interview segment in my version, that he wasn't an atheist at that time, he'd accepted Christ more than a decade before the conversation.  Even then he fails to mention that he was a "teaching pastor" at Willow Creek, a megachurch in Chicago, at the time of that interview.

He's also very bad about not presenting both sides of the argument.  He bashes The Jesus Seminar repeatedly, but we just have to take his word and that of his "experts" on why it's not good.  He bashes Karen Armstrong's History of God in a similar manner, but he never presents the other side of the coin, only the anti-position.  He tries to downplay the Q Document Hypothesis (of the synoptic Gospels sharing a document they all draw from but is now lost) as something believed only by the fringe, instead of the majority of Biblical scholars.  In the first third of the book he tries to establish why we should believe the Bible is historically accurate, and during Parts Two and Three, he never questions it again...and those two sections more or less strictly use the Bible as evidence. All in all, he failed to convince me of a proposition in which I already believed.

Edit:
The Valkyrie
I've recently read the Succubus series by Richelle Mead.

While I generally don't like books written ion the first person, just a personal dislike of mine, these are quite fun, well written, and hard to put down. 8.5 out of 10 on my Giveafuckometer.


That series is amazingly good. Who doesn't love bookstore working succubi, reclusive authors, and archangels that hang out with archdemons to drink through Seattle's bars together? Her Gameboard of the Gods has some promise, but wasn't a fan of her series with fairies.

[Silver]

You're Catholic and you didn't like a book about Jesus?

Not when it's a one sided pile of filth.   On another board I posted notes per chapter that totaled over 15,000 words probably.  Strobel... *tries to think of a good descriptor* This book contains many leaps of logic, much mental gymnastics, and several extremely dubious claims.  He has a habit that's almost like a verbal tic, were he speaking instead of writing, where after every softball he lobs at his experts, he describes them like a champion prize fighter or something else, about to beat down the evil skeptical argument. 

He also makes a rather glaring lie of omission in the book.  He presents this quite heavily as the interviews that lead to his conversion, during his investigation in 1980 and 1981, and the last interview takes place in the 1990s, with a guy talking about his wife dying of cancer in 1995. He never mentions, until the post-book interview segment in my version, that he wasn't an atheist at that time, he'd accepted Christ more than a decade before the conversation.  Even then he fails to mention that he was a "teaching pastor" at Willow Creek, a megachurch in Chicago, at the time of that interview.

He's also very bad about not presenting both sides of the argument.  He bashes The Jesus Seminar repeatedly, but we just have to take his word and that of his "experts" on why it's not good.  He bashes Karen Armstrong's History of God in a similar manner, but he never presents the other side of the coin, only the anti-position.  He tries to downplay the Q Document Hypothesis (of the synoptic Gospels sharing a document they all draw from but is now lost) as something believed only by the fringe, instead of the majority of Biblical scholars.  In the first third of the book he tries to establish why we should believe the Bible is historically accurate, and during Parts Two and Three, he never questions it again...and those two sections more or less strictly use the Bible as evidence.

Just cannot trust those Jesus believers.

[Shai Hulud]

Just cannot trust those Jesus believers.

Well hopefully some of us can be lol.  But when it comes to apologetics...yeah...reading through Answering the New Atheism:  Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God now.  Though it's a Catholic book and I've met and spoken with one of the authors before, not being terribly impressed thus far.

[Aegon]

American War by Omar El Akkad. A page turner with a well fleshed out future America where things like suicide bombings aren't uncommon and there's a 'civil war' going on. We watch as a girl goes from innocent and young to hardened terrorist following a refugee camp massacre, and how she impacts the history of both the nation and the world. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I saw an ad for that recently. It definitely piqued my interest.

[The Valkyrie]

You're Catholic and you didn't like a book about Jesus?

Not when it's a one sided pile of filth.   On another board I posted notes per chapter that totaled over 15,000 words probably.  Strobel... *tries to think of a good descriptor* This book contains many leaps of logic, much mental gymnastics, and several extremely dubious claims.  He has a habit that's almost like a verbal tic, were he speaking instead of writing, where after every softball he lobs at his experts, he describes them like a champion prize fighter or something else, about to beat down the evil skeptical argument. 

He also makes a rather glaring lie of omission in the book.  He presents this quite heavily as the interviews that lead to his conversion, during his investigation in 1980 and 1981, and the last interview takes place in the 1990s, with a guy talking about his wife dying of cancer in 1995. He never mentions, until the post-book interview segment in my version, that he wasn't an atheist at that time, he'd accepted Christ more than a decade before the conversation.  Even then he fails to mention that he was a "teaching pastor" at Willow Creek, a megachurch in Chicago, at the time of that interview.

He's also very bad about not presenting both sides of the argument.  He bashes The Jesus Seminar repeatedly, but we just have to take his word and that of his "experts" on why it's not good.  He bashes Karen Armstrong's History of God in a similar manner, but he never presents the other side of the coin, only the anti-position.  He tries to downplay the Q Document Hypothesis (of the synoptic Gospels sharing a document they all draw from but is now lost) as something believed only by the fringe, instead of the majority of Biblical scholars.  In the first third of the book he tries to establish why we should believe the Bible is historically accurate, and during Parts Two and Three, he never questions it again...and those two sections more or less strictly use the Bible as evidence.  All in all, he failed to convince me of a proposition in which I already believed.

Edit:
   The Valkyrie
   I've recently read the Succubus series by Richelle Mead.

   While I generally don't like books written ion the first person, just a personal dislike of mine, these are quite fun, well written, and hard to put down.  8.5 out of 10 on my Giveafuckometer.


That series is amazingly good.  Who doesn't love bookstore working succubi, reclusive authors, and archangels that hang out with archdemons to drink through Seattle's bars together? Her Gameboard of the Gods has some promise, but wasn't a fan of her series with fairies.

I've only read the Succubus series so far.

Contemplating getting another of her books to see if the quality is consistent.

[Silver]

I once contemplated reading Richelle Mead's books, having seen them at the library while spending hours perusing the shelves.

However, I passed on her.

[Shai Hulud]

American War by Omar El Akkad. A page turner with a well fleshed out future America where things like suicide bombings aren't uncommon and there's a 'civil war' going on. We watch as a girl goes from innocent and young to hardened terrorist following a refugee camp massacre, and how she impacts the history of both the nation and the world. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I saw an ad for that recently. It definitely piqued my interest.

Worth a read, at least in my opinion. Heard about it on NPR here, and then saw it in an airport Hudson News while flying to conference.

I've only read the Succubus series so far.

Contemplating getting another of her books to see if the quality is consistent.

Oh, if I can recommend? One of the Age of X if you want something future-esque, but with some supernatural-ness as well! I think the writing is mostly consistent.

I once contemplated reading Richelle Mead's books, having seen them at the library while spending hours perusing the shelves.

However, I passed on her.

If you enjoy supernatural urban fantasy stuff, she's worth a read. Also her characters are incredibly snarky to organized religion, at one point the succubus, Georgina, remarks how horrified Christians would be if they'd seen their rituals change over time the way she had. I think Mead has an MA in comparative religion or something similar.

[Silver]

]

If you enjoy supernatural urban fantasy stuff, she's worth a read.  Also her characters are incredibly snarky to organized religion, at one point the succubus, Georgina, remarks how horrified Christians would be if they'd seen their rituals change over time the way she had.  I think Mead has an MA in comparative religion or something similar.

So long as her writing style is nothing similar to Charlaine Harris', because that woman could not write to save her life. She was extremely fortunate that her books were made into the True Blood series, because at least that was worth watching.

[The Valkyrie]

]

If you enjoy supernatural urban fantasy stuff, she's worth a read.  Also her characters are incredibly snarky to organized religion, at one point the succubus, Georgina, remarks how horrified Christians would be if they'd seen their rituals change over time the way she had.  I think Mead has an MA in comparative religion or something similar.

So long as her writing style is nothing similar to Charlaine Harris', because that woman could not write to save her life.  She was extremely fortunate that her books were made into the True Blood series, because at least that was worth watching.

I haven't read anything from Charlaine Harris.

I can honestly say that Richelle Mead's books surprised me and I found them hard to put down.

[Shai Hulud]

I've never read Charlaine Harris either, but had the same issue with Mead. (Also must admit to laughing at the archangel burning down the Christmas tree in one book's backstory as to why the succubus has an artificial tree.)