Joined: May 2002 Posts: 11881 Images: 0 Location: Florida Highscores:145 Thanks: 735 Thanked: 339 times in 271 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.
Because the universe is God's, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.
Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines. Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkins's God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan ('accuser' in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkins's God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. Dawkins's Supreme Being is the God of those who seek to avert divine wrath by sacrificing animals, being choosy in their diet and being impeccably well behaved. They cannot accept the scandal that God loves them just as they are, in all their moral shabbiness. This is one reason St Paul remarks that the law is cursed. Dawkins sees Christianity in terms of a narrowly legalistic notion of atonement
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 11881 Images: 0 Location: Florida Highscores:145 Thanks: 735 Thanked: 339 times in 271 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Jesus, who pace Dawkins did indeed 'derive his ethics from the Scriptures' (he was a devout Jew, not the founder of a fancy new set-up), was a joke of a Messiah. He was a carnivalesque parody of a leader who understood, so it would appear, that any regime not founded on solidarity with frailty and failure is bound to collapse under its own hubris. The symbol of that failure was his crucifixion. In this faith, he was true to the source of life he enigmatically called his Father, who in the guise of the Old Testament Yahweh tells the Hebrews that he hates their burnt offerings and that their incense stinks in his nostrils. They will know him for what he is, he reminds them, when they see the hungry being filled with good things and the rich being sent empty away. You are not allowed to make a fetish or graven image of this God, since the only image of him is human flesh and blood. Salvation for Christianity has to do with caring for the sick and welcoming the immigrant, protecting the poor from the violence of the rich. It is not a 'religious' affair at all, and demands no special clothing, ritual behaviour or fussiness about diet. (The Catholic prohibition on meat on Fridays is an unscriptural church regulation.)
Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family (the suburban Dawkins is a trifle queasy about this), urged us to be laid-back about property and possessions, warned his followers that they too would die violently, and insisted that the truth kills and divides as well as liberates. He also cursed self-righteous prigs and deeply alarmed the ruling class.
The Christian faith holds that those who are able to look on the crucifixion and live, to accept that the traumatic truth of human history is a tortured body, might just have a chance of new life
You'll have to scroll down past the comic to see the blog entry. Basically, I think I've refuted Eagleton in just as smug and smarmy a manner as he thought he had refuted Dawkins.
Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 108
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Dear Gas:
Quote:At any rate, if you want to debate the issue, feel free to do so in the context of my meta-review of Eagleton, which can be found here, and in which I essentially blow his argument out of the water.
I started reading your review but couldn't make it past the reference to Eagleton's "post-modern philosophical naivety."
Given Eagleton's credentials, the only thing this comment establishes is your own naivety and lack of discernment. And the source of the problem is easy to see. You have convinced yourself there is no God. And you mistake this belief for knowledge. So any time you encounter a position based on a belief in God, whatever the person is saying automatically becomes a "joke" not worthy of consideration or any serious attempt to understand what is being said. What you do instead is reduce the discussion to a pointless and tiresome argument concerning the existence of God.
Do you really imagine that a person of Eagleton's erudition, wide-ranging knowledge, and interest in theology is unfamiliar with Plantinga and Swinburne? He doesn't refer to them because he is not arguing the existence of God.
Quote:The funny thing is that Eagleton doesn't really seem concerned with the legitimacy of arguments for God's existence.
Well that was a hint, wasn't it? You might consider when you encounter such inconsistencies that perhaps you have missed a point, or maybe two.
I don't perhaps agree with all that Eagleton believes, but I read and enjoy his writing anyway because of the respect I have for his obvious knowledge, the nuance he brings to critical appraisals, and his impressive command of the language. He was paid a tidy sum, I'm sure, for his article by the London Review of Books. Why do you suppose they would have done that? Do you imagine they would pay for your review?
Try to set aside your arguments for a moment and just look at his prose style and wit. It's on display throughout the review but one doesn't have to read past the first paragraph to understand his quality as a writer.
Quote:Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.
He has chosen biology for his allusion because that is Dawkins' field, and then he illustrates the comparable level of theological knowledge by referring to the Book of British Birds, which is immediately familiar to his readers while also being quaint and passe. Not only is this image concrete and arresting, but the title introduces a delightful and hilarious element of consonance, which is hardly surprising coming from a professor of literature.
The paragraph provides quite a bit more to admire and enjoy but I'll skip to another highlight -- the last sentence.
Quote:These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
Think about how he is using the word "queen" here and what he implies by its being used in a "rather less august sense." The sheer audacity of the metaphor, which compares the position of gays in British society with the position of theology in relation to the sciences, is breathtaking. And it is done so adroitly as well. A delicate comparison is handled in such a way that any discerning reader will smile and take the point. And the ambiguity with which the term is applied goes well beyond that, touching as it does on the British monarchy and the historical context of theological studies.
I have such limited time for reading that I'm determined to spend the time I do have with the very best on offer. And, thanks to this review, Eagleton is now a writer whose work I look forward to reading.
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Quote:I started reading your review but couldn't make it past the reference to Eagleton's "post-modern philosophical naivety."
Given Eagleton's credentials, the only thing this comment establishes is your own naivety and lack of discernment.
Fiske, I have an English degree and have taken a few literary theory courses, so I know who Eagleton is and I know his credentials. In fact, I have a copy of his book "Literary Theory" sitting on top of my coffee table right now! I know, for instance, that he was a Marxist literary theorist of sorts, so clearly I am not naively ignorant of the man.
Quote:So any time you encounter a position based on a belief in God, whatever the person is saying automatically becomes a "joke" not worthy of consideration or any serious attempt to understand what is being said. What you do instead is reduce the discussion to a pointless and tiresome argument concerning the existence of God.
Don't be foolish, Fiske. You don't think the criticisms I have offered against theism and belief in God have critically considered the claims of those who have made various arguments? You would do well to actually read some of my posts in this community and in my blog, then, because my refutations of these arguments are not just claims that they are silly and therefore I need not address them. I actually address these arguments in quite a serious manner. But then again, perhaps if you had actually read the entire article, instead of stopping at the point where I call Eagleton naive, you would have realized that.
And how is it "reducing" the discussion (which is about belief in God's EXISTENCE) to discuss arguments for and against God's existence? That's what Dawkins' book is ABOUT! Eagleton is the one "reducing" this discussion to something irrelevant, bringing up liberal interpretations of Christianity that are just as baseless, and in fact contextually wrong if we consider the origin and actual meaing of the scriptures.
In fact, if anyone is being "reductive" and dismissive here, it is you. What you do is say, "Oh, you called Eagleton naive, I'm not going to continue reading and just assume you are wrong." Meanwhile, I have read Eagleton's entire article and have critiqued the large majority of it (much of it tongue-in-cheek and using Eagleton's own tactics for Dawkins against him), and I'm the one being dismissive and uncritical? Riiiight.
Quote:Do you really imagine that a person of Eagleton's erudition, wide-ranging knowledge, and interest in theology is unfamiliar with Plantinga and Swinburne? He doesn't refer to them because he is not arguing the existence of God.
I don't really believe he is ignorant of Swinburne and Plantinga, Fiske. The entire point of my meta-review was to show how Eagleton's reasoning, when applied to his own article, would make him out to be little more than a no-nothing hack concerning theological matters. I sarcastically remark, for instance, that it COULDN'T be the case that he does not really go into any theological depths because he is written an online book review intended for lay people, and not a theological dissertation, and I remark that he would agree with me given that he criticizes Dawkins on similar grounds, even though his work, too, is intended for lay people and isn't supposed to be a theological dissertation! Basically, I am insulting Eagleton in the same way he has attempted to insult Dawkins based upon his conception that Dawkins' work is supposed to be a vast theological treatise, and not a popular work.
And as for him not arguing about the existence of God, I completely agree--which is why his entire review is not even a criticism of Dawkins' book at all, because his book is about the existence of God, not about theological discussions of hope, subjectivity, or how God's love is capable of logically sustaining things.
Eagleton is indeed a very good writer, but good writing does not make his points stand up to critical assessment.
Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Quote:Dawkins always writes and talks as though he's proud of having written a book that counters every argument for the existence of God that has been put forward.
And the reason he talks in this manner is because he is using a very specific definition of God. In the first few chapters of the book, he explains that he is not addressing barren theological conceptions of God like those attributed to Einstein, pantheists, or people like Spinoza. His book is criticizing gods that are thinking, loving, beings with personhood. Indeed, Eagleton tries to dodge this by saying that his God is not a person, and then in the same breath he says that he is a person (a political criminal). He even attributes characteristics like "loving" to God, and if God were not a person, then it wouldn't be clear what he means by "loving". Simply because theologians can redefine God to mean different things doesn't mean that Dawkins' points are wrong. You have to remember that Dawkins is working with a very specific conception of God.
Quote:The Saint is also a little hard on Eaglton. No, Eaglton does not provide a fool-proof justification of his philosophical beliefs, but he was writing a book-review and not a book.
I think you missed the point. I was purposely being hard on Eagleton because he was being hard on Dawkins for similar faults. I even acknowledge that he is not to be expected to write a theological dissertation in a book review when I sarcastically remark that the lacking depth couldn't be because he is writing an online book review. Basically, my point is that it is silly to demand such depth of an online book review written for the general public--just as it is silly for Eagleton to expect the same depth from a work of popular nonfiction written for lay people. Does he really expect such a book to address the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Then why doesn't he produce such depth in his own review? You see, the point of my being "hard" on Eagleton is to use his own foolish rhetorical techniques against him. Eagleton wants to play a smug, ivory tower philosopher without walking the walk, and I'm calling him on it using his own types of arguments against Dawkins.
That is essentially the entire point of my meta-review. It is remarkably easy to wittily perform a hatchet job on pieces that are written for lay audiences and the general public, provided you are willing to dive just a little bit deeper and then play the role of a smug, ivory-tower type who is somehow above it all. I have applied the same types of smug criticism to Eagleton himself, and the obvious response is that I am being hard on him, because this isn't supposed to be something of encyclopedic depth, but a book review--and in issuing this defense of Eagleton, his review instantly collapses under the weight of this defense, because he makes the same sorts of criticisms in his expectation that Dawkins' book about the nonexistence of deities with attributes of personhood also be a book of deep theological depth that addresses irrelevant theological tangents on hope, subjectivity, and comparisons between Aquinas and Duns Scotus based upon their epistemic standards.
Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 528
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
Fiske, that's not really fair. St. Gas wasn't trying to compare his experience with Eagleton's. He was pointing out that in English classes, especially in lit theory classes, there is a lot of reading/discussing Eagleton's work. He was only noting that he is familiar with his expertise. Why don't you boys (girls) stop swinging those things around (retract those claws) a bit.
*Edited to add a smiley so you know I was teasing there. Edited by: irishrosem at: 1/20/07 3:38 pm
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 11881 Images: 0 Location: Florida Highscores:145 Thanks: 735 Thanked: 339 times in 271 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - London Review o
I think an English degree and numerous literary courses gives Gas good solid foundation to judge anothers writing. I know plenty of people with more advanced degrees than myself, but they clearly aren't more intelligent or more effective at thinking critically.
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 4 times in 4 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: --
I see they are trying to make Pope John Paul II a saint now. So what 'miracles' did HE perform?
I was raised Catholic, and I feel that Dawkins hit the Saint thing on the head...but please do explain the whole Saint thing Niall. I am interested in the details you would bring to the discussion.
Saints, as I understand the basics (and whether admitted by Catholics or not) are replacements for the multiple gods of polytheism...a way to gain converts from old multi-god systems. And this is an idea I have seen around...some even try to say that the Catholics are guilty of polytheism.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: --
Quote:Just a quick reply. Did you read the quote I gave from the catechism regarding God's personhood, or rather lack of? Read it again if you can't really recall it. That's what Eaglton was referring to and that's generally what's meant by many when they say that they believe in a personal God.
That catechism is not really a description of God's lacking personhood, though. For instance, it surely describes a God who can perform actions, as it talks about him as a creator.
The reason the catechism tries so desperately to describe God in terms of pure negation, and to say that our "words" don't apply to him, is because in doing so they make God irrefutable. You can't refute the existence of something if you don't even know what it is, or how to adequately describe it. Besides, the same people who claim to believe in a God who lacks personhood will talk of God as loving, talking, listening, issuing moral commands, thinking, and so on. Now, one can reply that they do not mean this literally--but then what the hell do they mean? If you don't even know what you mean, then you aren't really saying anything. You may as well speak in tongues or jibberish.
The only thing "sophisticated" about this sort of theology is that it attempts to dodge criticisms of God by making God something that can't be discoursed about. The problem with this reasoning, however, is that it is open to rebuttals from non-cognitivism varities of atheism, which basically state that atheism is justified because "god" doesn't even appear to meaningfully refer to anything.
So like I said, if you describe God in terms of loving, thinking, and acting, but don't really think that God does these things because he is "transcendant" and "human words don't apply to him", then why say that he does these things? If all you truly believe in is a logical foundation that you say can metaphorically "love" us, then you aren't really believing in anything that I would call a deity. And you certainly aren't believing in any God compatible with Christianity or any other of the big religions.
Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Quote:Canonization Process VATICAN CITY, SEP 12, 1997 (VIS) - Today the Holy See Press Office made public the following note on canonical procedure for causes of beatification and canonization:
"1. Canon norms regarding the procedure to be followed for causes of saints are contained in the Apostolic Constitution 'Divinus Perfectionis Magister,' promulgated by John Paul II on January 25, 1983.
"2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate.
"3. The bishop of the diocese in which the person whose beatification is being requested died is responsible for beginning the investigation. The promoter group ('Actor Causae'): diocese, parish, religious congregation, association, asks the bishop through the postulator for the opening of the investigation. The bishop, once the 'nulla osta' of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his state in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered. At this point he is entitled to the title of Servant of God.
"4. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the acts and documentation are passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public copy used for further work is put together here. The postulator, resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the 'Positio', or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The 'Positio' undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of the theologians are in favour, the cause is passed on for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If their judgment is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father, who gives his approval and authorizes the congregation to draft the relative decree. The public reading and promulgation of the decree follows.
"5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.
"6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public worship in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint."
Mr. P.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Review of "The God Delusion" - LRB
Quote:As for Eaglton not providing arguments for God's existence, well why on earth would he? He was writing a book review. If he wanted to convince you of something regarding the existence of God, I imagine he'd write a book about the existence of God, like Dawkins did. You can't really criticise Eagleton for not doing something he never claimed to have done.
The thing is, Niall, is that I'm NOT criticizing Eagleton for having very few proofs concerning the existence of God in his book review! As I've said multiple times, I'm using his own rhetorical techniques and arguments against him. His whole screed against Dawkins is a criticism of Dawkins "doing something he never claimed to have done". The purpose of Dawkins' book isn't to outline versions of liberal theology that aren't fundamentalist, but to show why there is little reason to believe in God, and how the belief can be harmful. Again, in my review, I make it a point several times that I realize we can't expect Eagleton to issue any deep arguments because he is writing a book review, and not a theological dissertation. The only reason I criticize him on this front is because he criticizes Dawkins for similar reasons, even though his book for lay people is not a theological dissertation, either.
Quote:For instance, in his section on polytheism, he starts talking about Catholic saints. Do I really believe he knows anything about the theology behind this? Like hell he does! I doubt he thinks there is anything there to understand. Dawkins doesn't limit himself to talking about God, he also talks about specific aspects of religions, religions he has no interest in studying.
The problem, Niall, is that the majority of people who believe in these saints also don't know the theology about it. People who are out there in the world practicing religion do not read Aquinas and other theologians on hope and subjectivity, and their "religions" are given as examples by Dawkins. To point out that there are other versions is really irrelevant to his purpose.
For instance, if I criticize muslim terrorists because they use religion to justify violence, you can say, "But you understand nothing of theology, because the great Ibn Sina (or insert any other muslim theologian) didn't preach violence at all, so what do you know of muslim theology?" Notice that this isn't a criticism of the argument, for one. It is still a fact that certain muslim terrorists use religion to justify violence. It is also highly irrelevant. Sure, there are "sophisticated" conceptions of Islam, but one need not cite them or even know about them in order to criticize the unsophisticated versions for causing violence, especially when it is the "unsophisticated" religion that is mainstream!
Dawkins' technique in this book is to use examples of "unsophisticated" religion to show how religion can be harmful and dangerous in the world, but in regards to arguments against God's existence, he stresses that they disprove the "sophisticated" religions as much as the "unsophisticated" ones. I don't need to know every theological detail about a religion's views on hope and subjectivity to know it is unjustified.
Dawkins isn't going to discuss these sophisticated versions in chapters where he emphasizes the violence and problems that can be caused by religion because he recognizes that these versions don't cause violence.
Visit my website at http://www.saintgasoline.com if you like fart jokes, poop jokes, or jokes about other hilarious substances.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
If someone were to ask me how
many times they should
proofread, how many drafts, I
would tell them they were
already wrong if they thought
there was some certain magic
number to ma… more
The 12th Disciple is now being
stocked at Poor Richard's
Bookstore in Colorado Springs.
We're happy to have the
title at such a historic
location in Colorado Springs.
If… more
For most of us, a very big
part of our lives will be a
dark place, we wont realize
it. We live, we eat, we have
some fun, we go to school, we
sleep. But it will come the
time, when… more
It's finally out. My
vampire masterpiece
Bloodlines. I came up with
the idea of this book one
night when I was wasted in
college watching Bram
Stoker's Dracula and the
… more
This is probably one of my
favorite books. I wrote this
as a lifelong vampire fan
writing for the sake of
vampire fans. I tried to stay
true to the myths of vampires
and not chan… more
The 12th Disciple's
endorsement for a Presidential
Candidate...we'll pass.
If many haven't learned
over the past several decades,
centuries, and millennia, the
gover… more
So I've been looking for
new books to read, but I
haven't found any that
have caught my attention
lately. I want to try and
venture out into a different
genre, but I'… more
For those who constantly gripe
about jobs being sent
overseas, focus your anger on
this. Read about how one of
the most profitable companies
prided by American citizens
offshores t… more
Its January 1945 and British,
Commonwealth, US and POWs from
various other nationalities
are finally awaiting
liberation from the various
camps in Eastern Europe, where
some of the… more
A good friend of mine recently
received a pre-paid credit
card. She went to pay for a
$20.00 gas purchase only to
later find out that over a
$70.00 hold was placed on her
card for… more
While watching the bube tube
(TV) this morning I stumbled
on a motivational speaker
saying “today marks a new
year, you now have a blank
canvas to work from.”
The 12th Disciple wishes you
and yours a Happy New Year.
Many of us hope and pray that
2012 will bring better
leadership in the government
of the United States, better
leadership i… more
The Cat & The
Nightingale Saga, the docu
drama version of The Weekend
Trippers, also tells Rifleman
Ted TaylorÂ’s story but in a
slightly different way. It too
tells of the… more
In 2011 I published my book;
in the book I outlined 9 Key
Principles to Prosperity
(happiness). Like
many of you, I walked through
2011 with the Woe is me
attitude. When… more
More and more these days I see
people using social media to
quote what someone else has
said. I see people posting
their favorite rappers lyrics,
lines from movies and what
seems t… more
IÂ’m down the school for the
first time today. My friend
visited two weeks ago and said
it was chaos. They must have
heard I was back
because everything is tidy and
orderly today… more
I'm quite positive that
everyone who enters this site
has the same thing in mind:
fear of seeing a world without
books, without literature. We
see it everyday, more people
qui… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
Booktalk.org on Facebook
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
