The battle of Zama; fought across North Africa around 202 BC; was the final large-scale clash of arms between the world's two greatest western powers of the time--Carthage and Rome. The engagement ended the Second Punic War; waged from 218 until 201 BC. The armies were led by two of the most famous commanders of all time--the legendary Carthaginian general Hannibal; renowned for crossing the Alps with his army into Italy; and the Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio; who along with his father was among the defeated at the battle of Cannae in 216 BC.Drawing upon years of research; author Mir Bahmanyar gives a detailed account of this closing battle; analyzing the tactics employed by each general and the forces they had at their disposal. Stunning; specially commissioned artwork brings to life the epic clash that saw Hannibal defeated and Rome claim its spot as the principal Mediterranean power.
#843268 in Books 2017-03-09Original language:English 9.21 x .75 x 6.02l; .0 #File Name: 1471152391
Review
112 of 121 people found the following review helpful. 26 out of 28 Stars?By Matthew RoseBelow I will share my overall thoughts on WM. Paul Young's book Lies We Believe About God in summary format. I will utilize a green light; yellow light; red light format in my critique.Green Light (Stuff I really liked....GO!)1. The Tone- I liked the humble tone of the introduction (and carried through to the rest of the book). Young is not being dogmatic. He is sharing his thoughts. He is creating questions which are; of course; healthy to discuss.2. The Jesus Centered Approach- In theory; this is the right approach. I think Young attempted to keep Jesus at the center. But that's not as easy as one might think. At times it seemed that Young might be leaning more on a certain interpretation of Paul or even certain statements of Jesus (while ignoring others). But overall; I appreciate the Jesus centered approach.3. Emphasis on Genesis 1- I like that Young talked about the inherent goodness of humanity. We need more voices that take Genesis 1 and the anthropological predecessor to Genesis 3.4. A Non-Controlling God- Young is right; it seems to me; to move away from meticulous sovereignty and toward a God who is purposefully non-controlling. Surprisingly; it seemed that Young departed from this a bit in the chapter about coincidences; but overall I thought he was solid on this point. I'd be interested to know what Young would think of the work of Thomas Jay Oord.5. Caution Toward Religion- Young stated that Jesus came to end religion in a very real sense. I agree.6. God and Gender- I never had a problem with Young's portrayal of the Trinity in The Shack so far as it concerns gender. In this book; he does a good job of stating his view. I concur.7. Magic Christianity- I think Young did a very good job of describing how some Christians have a magical view of faith and performance. This is something I come across in local church ministry quite often.8. Sex- I think was on point in the chapter on God's relationship to sexuality.9. Politics- With the exception of not fleshing out (or even mentioning) Romans 13; I think Young did a great job of discussing the Christian relationship to the state (especially considering how short a space he devoted to this).10. Hell- As someone who wrote a thesis paper on hell; I felt Young's treatment of the subject was fair. I don't agree with his view (Christian Universalism); but I don't consider it heretical either.11. Atonement- I think Young did a good job of critiquing some forms of penal substitution theory that pit God the Father against the Son.12. Trinity- I appreciated and share Young's thoughts on the Trinity. I do believe that 'God is love' is a true statement because God is a plurality of unified persons. It's wonderful to know that love is at the very core of reality.Yellow Light (Stuff I'd be cautious about... SLOW DOWN!)1. View of the Fall- I was not thoroughly convinced that Young had a thoroughgoing view of the depth of human depravity. His best statement of it was in chapter 22; but overall he seemed to view the human condition as one where our goodness is just buried deep inside us rather than that it is actually distorted.2. Christian Universalism- I consider General Universalism to be heresy; but I wouldn't say this about Christian Universalism. In the latter; I would distinguish between dogmatic universalism and hopeful universalism. Young seems basically certain that all will be saved. I would be more open to hopeful universalism. I actually think Young's certainty on this point goes against some of his basic operating principles.3. Unclear Writing and/or Thinking- On a number of points; Young's position is either unclear or doesn't make sense to me. For instance; he says that our salvation is secure; but that participation in it is necessary. I'm not sure how those statements could both be true. He seems sure that all will be saved; but emphasizes the importance and eternal nature of the gift of free will. Again; those statements seem to exist in some degree of tension. On the problem of pain; Young says God is able to intervene miraculously; but doesn't usually do this. Nevertheless; Young says he would if he were able. He leans on mystery here; I guess. The coincidence chapter didn't seem to fit with some of his other thinking. You can't really say God doesn't control stuff (when talking about bad stuff especially) and then say He's behind every detail (when talking about the good stuff).Red Light (Stuff I didn't like... STOP!)1. We're Already Saved- I don't think Young is right about this. I think he has focused on a possible interpretation of some verses at the expense of both better interpretations of said passages AND the context of those passages AND a multitude of other verses that suggest otherwise. I don't think this is just semantics. There is truth in telling fellow Christians that they need to keep their new reality (they are a new creation!) in mind; but it's inappropriate; in my view; to say the same to non-Christians (for they are not yet a New Creation). What needs to happen in the life of a non-follower of Jesus isn't simply to stop believing lies. They need to come to The Truth (Jesus).2.We're All God's Children- Much the same here. I think Young was wrong to ignore the necessary nuance on this point. He literally dismissed the opportunity to add good nuance (top of 205). It is true that we are all children of God in the sense that we are all God's creation. It is also true that we are all loved by God. But it is not true in every sense that everyone is a child of God. And some of those senses are important (life and death stuff).Overall; I thought the book had (much) much more true teaching than false teaching (from my perspective). Specifically; I think Young is wrong to label the following statements as lies:Chapter 13 "You need to get saved"Chapter 24 "Not everyone is a child of God"That's not to say that everything Young says in those chapters is wrong. It's just to say that I think there is actually more truth in the supposed 'lie' than there is in his rebuttal.77 of 84 people found the following review helpful. Truth Is An Elusive ThingBy Todd E. HeppLies We Believe About God is creating a stir. Martin Luther listed 95 Theses. Paul Young only lists 28 Lies. You would be hard-pressed to find another product on with so evenly divided between 5-star and 1-star ratings; and nothing in between. Rotate the familiar yellow bar graph 90 degrees and it looks like football goalposts (or some would say devil horns). Black-and-white polarization is a sign of the times. America is divided again. If there's no such thing as bad publicity; then God must be pleased by controversy the book is generating.I hail from Tennessee; the Scopes Monkey Trial state. The hoopla back then (1925) was about denial of the biblical origin of life (Creationism) and teaching evolution (Darwinism). Now it's about denial of biblical orthodoxy and embracing universalism. Boiled to their essence; both disputes test presuppositions regarding the authority of the Bible (i.e.; "God's Word" as inerrantists call it). Both disputes are showcased in movies; albeit separated by 57 years. I enjoyed The Shack (Sam Worthington) as much as Inherit The Wind (Spencer Tracy).When I read the 1-star reviews I'm reminded of that scene in Inherit The Wind when the alarmed townspeople; protest-signs in hand; march around singing Give Me That Old-Time Religion. When I read the 5-star reviews I wonder the same thing I did when the credits rolled for The Shack. As I walked into the theater's parking lot; I said to my wife; "What did God do with Missy's killer?" That seems to be the rub. Nobody should get away with murder. There's no shame in wanting justice; for him or me.For a religion to succeed; apparently it needs a hell to fear more than a heaven to enjoy. And to read the comments; not just some annihilation kind of hell where everything just goes black; but a perpetual-pitchfork-'n-the-rear hell; a place of eternal conscious torment. Orthodox religion presumes people must be incentivized by reward/punishment to live right. Paul Young holds a higher view; as do I. Don't so-called atheists commit less crimes than Christians? That's odd.I'm going to break new ground and give Lies We Believe About God 3-stars. On the downside; it's too brief; too shallow. and omits dozens more lies that should have been included. The book doesn't touch topics such as eschatology; militarism; feminism; or homosexuality. On the upside; it gets people thinking outside the numbing narrowness of their indoctrination and group-think conditioning. The book is a great discussion starter. I'd give The Shack 5-stars hands down. Fiction is harder to write; but what non-fiction books lack in character development and plot must be made up in depth of research.I will not repeat the commentary I posted in other threads on this forum; but if there is one component sorely missing in all the what-happens-to-us-when-we-die salvation schemes (e.g.; unconditional election/damnation; free-will altar-call decisions; or all good dogs go to heaven-ism) its justice; not grace. Deep inside; above all else; we want a God who is fair; because life isn't. We yearn for a corrections institute in-the-sky (e.g.; purgatory; a restorative hell; rehabilitation; and yes; some form of do-the-crime-do-the-time punishment). We want justice; not pardons. Soteriology should be 50 shades of gray because life is too. We want proportionality. God's all-knowingness is equal to the task of being a perfectly fair judge of our lives. God is an irresistible beacon to our souls that draws us in...all of us...even the most recalcitrant...eventually. That's a beautiful thought; even if it is unbiblical according to some people. I only care what's true. Who knows?The familiar judged-once-to-heaven-or-hell-forever model pitched by religion is overly simplistic; cynically gamed; and irrationally feared. Paul Young's theology takes religion out of the loop. The lucrative religion industry stands to lose customers. Ouch! No wonder they're up in arms. The Nones and Dones are the fastest growing category. Can you skip church altogether and still go to heaven? Is Gandhi in heaven? Is it how well you love; or affirming correct doctrines that matters to God? One day; we'll see; we'll see.Jesus flattened hierarchies. Human institutions build them back. We're all about power over others; establishing pecking orders; forming cliques; collecting dues; having our egos stroked; assuaging guilty consciences; defining them versus us; always looking to exclude rather than include. Paul Young seems above the fray. His worldview is more horizontal than vertical. He's relational...egalitarian. I love that. I hope he writes a sequel to The Shack.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Some beautiful truths and some questionable parts.By Sharon R. MillerThis is a hard book to rate. On the one hand; it contains some beautiful; freeing truths. On the other hand; it pulls certain scriptures out of context to support an opinion at odds with other scriptures. It even contradicts itself at times. For instance; it states that God will never override your free will; and then asserts that God will bring you to himself whether you want to come or not. It is hard to perceive how both assertions could be true.Should you read it? I would never ban a book. Just read it thoughtfully. When the author supports an opinion with a scripture; grab your Bible and read the whole context of what was being said and to whom. Enjoy the truth this book presents; but be ready to disregard the shaky parts. After all; no single human possesses a perfect understanding of God. The author makes this same point in the introduction. There is no need to label him a heretic and curse the whole book. He is a fellow searcher on a journey; just like the rest of us.
