|  | | | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
 GOD IS NOT GREAT, NEITHER IS THE BOOK Jul 29, 2010
The title of the book is creative and captivating so I fell into buying it, but what's (also) not great is the book itself. The author does not offer any new insights in the debate against religion. Moreover, he ignores (or chooses to ignore) the many powerful rational arguments of modern religious apologists; there is no mention of any of these; making an attempt to answer them would have made the reading worthwhile. His constant mocking of religion just because of its history of inhumanity does nothing to counteract the claim of religion defenders, that Jihadists are not true Muslims and that Crusaders were not true Christians. Ironically, Hitchens fierce stand against religion as irrevocably fundamentalist, without the deep analysis mentioned above, makes HIM a fundamentalist (albeit secular).
The book is also full of factual errors. Hitchens claims that the Old Testament "never mentions human solidarity and compassion at all" (dozens of verses show the contrary), that it "says nothing about rape" (how about Deut 22:29), and other false statements. He criticizes phrases like "an eye for an eye" as if they were ever meant to be taken literally, obviously ignoring hundreds of interpretations of Jewish Oral Law which became the norm, instead of the literal text. On page 111 (paperback edition) the author quotes Maimonides as cursing Jesus, something he never did (the paragraph he refers to, is the opinion of an obscure Rabbi in the Talmud, relating to any Jew who becomes an apostate, not Jesus in particular, and the Talmud consists of thousands of personal opinions, by many Rabbis, most of those opinions not authoritative). On page 224 he again mocks Maimonides for his opinion that circumcision was probably instituted because it brings about a decrease in sexual desire, forgetting that Maimonides was a medieval physician who attempted to find a rational explanation to the ritual, being his thought on the matter, the medical opinion at the time, in disagreement with the Bible itself, which clearly states that it is to be performed as a sign of the covenant with God, period (circumcision in Hebrew is "Brit" which means covenant). On page 206 Hitchens says that pious Jews "are trying to breed the red heifer mentioned in Numbers 19" This is nothing but his invention as Jews would not know what to do with such heifer as the details of its sacrificial ritual have been lost, to be revealed again only with the coming of the Messiah. On the same page he errors by saying that Lot was seduced by his daughters (it was not Lot but Noah). These are only some examples of many.
The book has some historical errors, as when it states (twice in the book) that "Jews borrowed and plagiarized Hanukah from the Christians". The story of Hanukah occurred 160 years before Jesus was born. Moreover, the day of Jesus' birth (Christmas) was not established until the X century! Jesus himself celebrated Hanukah...And philosophically, both events are contrarian in nature, whereas Hanukah celebrates the restoration of the Law, Christmas celebrates its abolition. Hitchens says that Spinoza's body was stolen after his death and desecrated by his tribe members (the Jews), again, an invention; we know that Spinoza is buried in the churchyard of the Nieuwe Kerk on Spui in The Hague.On page 272 Hitchins gives a false reason as to why Albert Einstein refused the offer of becoming the first president of the State of Israel. The author equals all religions in their degree of inhumanity throughout history, which is absurd.
Finally, Hitchen's lack of scholarship is also evident as for example (among many!), on page 156 he criticizes the Old Testament for the contradiction of forbidding Adam to eat from both, the Tree of Knowledge ("he would die as punishment") and the Tree of Life ("so he would live forever"), but nowhere does the text say that Adam was forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life! As a matter of fact, his punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge was expulsion, in order to -among other things- prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life; by doing this God's fulfilled his threat of killing Adam -albeit not immediately- by not giving him the possibility of eternal life. On page 207 Hitchens claims that Abraham was to sacrifice his son in "expiation of his own crimes" once again an invention by the author as the text itself states that it was only to test Abraham of his faith in the One God. On page 261 Hitchens criticizes the Old Testament's cruelty by telling the story of Elisha and the 42 youths, but he fails to include the many discussions and interpretations on this subject (i.e. that Elisha only cursed them and the bears were coincidental...moreover, the Talmud states Elisha was later punished for treating them so harshly). Hitchens claims he once got an applause when he attacked the Orthodox Jewish prayer that thanks god for not making you a woman or a Gentile; even Jewish Orthodox children know that the reason is not antifeminism or racism, but to thank god for the obligation of fulfilling all Commandments 613), whereas women are only obliged to fulfill about half, and Gentiles only 7. In the afterword, the author apologizes for having affirmed previously that Orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in the sheet; somebody must have straighten him out on that one. He is to apologize too for not having "made his homework" for this book as we have shown. Maybe if he does,he can write in the future a more convincing sequel. If to all said, you add that the book is extremely boring, it is difficult to understand the hype ("NY Times bestseller"!)
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 he makes the same mistakes he points out Jul 28, 2010
There are absolutely some valid points in this book and they should be stated, but unfortunately Hitchens makes the exact same mistakes he points out in every topic he covers. He judges the "religious" for assuming and subscribing while he assumes and subscribes. It seems to me that Hitchens has a religion against religions. There doesn't seem to be a recognition on his part that religion is separate from faith and that theists are as individual as atheists. It seems that Hitchens believes that unless you DON'T believe in God, you are judgmental.... As a result, I thought he was no more objective than the Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, he finds so silly. Judging others and not walking in another's shoes is hurtful whether you do it in the name of religion or not. He makes all of my atheist friends look bad.
0 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 Pretentious and boring! Jul 28, 2010
I am not a believer of religion or Hitchens. A pretentious restatement of the obvious.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 Illuminating Dark Corners Jul 25, 2010
Hitchens shows how faith-based belief systems can and often do bring harm to people, injustice, prejudice, and worse. He is quite knowledgeable in the world religions, world events, and speaks from this understanding. I find his views to be quite enlightening.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
Good read Jul 19, 2010
Other people have said it better. This is a good book. He lays out his arguments and backs them up with some very compelling, heartbreaking, breathtaking, shocking and interesting facts. The man has lived a life I could never imagine, the places he's been and the things he's seen... It is not at times an "easy" read. This one's a book for your brain, so have a dictionary at hand.
|
| | |
