Scan barcode
jmanchester0's review
4.0
I'm not sure what I expected - but I think that I thought that this was going to be a clinical discussion on how to find a path to bridge secular Humanism and religion - which both have, as their root, very similar values.
But instead, it's a story. Chris Stedman's story of his exploration of Christianity, of atheism, and that he found how he could build that bridge. This story is told from a unique and fascinating perspective, and it's a great book about faith. Ironically, a book by an atheist helped me to reevaluate the good that can be found in religion, at a time that (as a follower of Jesus), I'm being jaded by organized religion. It helped me to remember that, as I believe Jesus would say, it's all about the people. (Even though it's people who are extremists and are tearing the good things out of religion.)
And he finishes with why we should all work together to make a better world. And why not? Are atheists so afraid of believers? Are people of religion so afraid of non-believers? Why shouldn't we all work together when we want the same goal? Getting rid of religious extremism and helping people are worthy goals! Let's set aside our differences. Plus, the dialogue is important in and of itself. To understand each other - that's a huge side effect.
Worth reading.
But instead, it's a story. Chris Stedman's story of his exploration of Christianity, of atheism, and that he found how he could build that bridge. This story is told from a unique and fascinating perspective, and it's a great book about faith. Ironically, a book by an atheist helped me to reevaluate the good that can be found in religion, at a time that (as a follower of Jesus), I'm being jaded by organized religion. It helped me to remember that, as I believe Jesus would say, it's all about the people. (Even though it's people who are extremists and are tearing the good things out of religion.)
And he finishes with why we should all work together to make a better world. And why not? Are atheists so afraid of believers? Are people of religion so afraid of non-believers? Why shouldn't we all work together when we want the same goal? Getting rid of religious extremism and helping people are worthy goals! Let's set aside our differences. Plus, the dialogue is important in and of itself. To understand each other - that's a huge side effect.
Worth reading.
norma_cenva's review against another edition
5.0
I might disagree with the message of the book itself, but it in no way prevented me to enjoy it! Author's voice is unique and enjoyable. The reading adventure was worth it for me.
heat_her's review
5.0
Faitheist is a wonderful book that I highly recommend to everyone, no matter your religious or non-religious affiliations. Chris is very down-to-earth (no pun intended), well spoken, and passionate about his beliefs and the work he does with the interfaith community. I think a lot of people (including myself) can learn from his example.
Read my full review at Between the Covers...
Read my full review at Between the Covers...
kim_n31's review against another edition
5.0
I think Chris Stedman may turn out to be an important young man in this world. His story was interesting and gave me hope for relations between the non-religious and those who practice religious beliefs and how that diversity of thought and interactions can grow into something that can change communities and possibly the world. Although it's still in the very early stages, it's clear that there are some shared values between the people that Chris represents and those people with religious beliefs that are accepting of those with different beliefs and those shared beliefs can go far.
abetterbradley's review
4.0
This is a very interesting life story of a young queer man who, at first, finds solace and community in Jesus and religion but then slowly moves away from religion. It's also a really great insight into interfaith coalitions and a beginning primer on how atheists and believers can work together.
originaljbone's review
1.0
The word cloying kept popping into my head. Chris' youth shows in his self absorption. His descriptive phrases feel artificial. He tells us up front that he has a terrible memory and yet knows when a gust of wind brought the scent of lilacs into a room. Or when his shirt was soaked with sweat from exertion. I found the flowery descriptive bits distracting and a little self-indulgent.
His journey feels very passive. He doesn't seem aware that the church lured him in with smiles and pizza. He just knows he has a boner for one of the welcomers (who it turns out was simply using his good looks and charm to lure in new recruits. The revelation of the ploy doesn't lead Chris to any deeper thought than "where'd the cute guy go?")
He goes along with the church until switching to another church. Continues at a religious school even though he doesn't believe in god. Did he get a scholarship? Is this the only school that had an interfaith program? Does Chris ever make a decision for himself?
His stories seem apocryphal -- In that they work out perfectly for him. His standing ovation for his courageous high school speech and hug from the guy he was most scared of. The broken glass reflecting the brokenness of his spirit. Both are as believable as any after-school special.
By page 101 I was pretty tired of his uninteresting journey. Chris is really interested in how everything revolves around Chris. There's no sense of anything else going on.
The atheist party - taking his shoes off and being underdressed. He paints himself always as the underdog. The one just trying to do right but snobby atheists call him names and ignore him.
The title itself suggests Chris sees himself as the lone outsider. He was the only gay kid at his school so he took himself out of the system to learn on his own because no one understands him. He's the only one going to the "crack stack" and establishing real relationships because his friends don't understand these people the way Chris does...although he won't engage them fully because how could they understand his lack of faith?
Pious? Is that a word to use?
From page 160 "The activism of my adolescence was defined by self-righteousness..." I would say it's still a large part of Stedman's writing/activism. In every anecdote he sets himself up as the lone understanding hero. The underestimated champion of equal time for all parts of the conversation.
Cloying is the right word.
From Patel's introduction. He finds it hard to picture Hitchens or Dawkins doing something nice for someone. This sort of self congratulatory, patting on the back is again more about being self-righteously smug than about genuine understanding.
In the end I didn't finish the book. I just couldn't take it any more.
His journey feels very passive. He doesn't seem aware that the church lured him in with smiles and pizza. He just knows he has a boner for one of the welcomers (who it turns out was simply using his good looks and charm to lure in new recruits. The revelation of the ploy doesn't lead Chris to any deeper thought than "where'd the cute guy go?")
He goes along with the church until switching to another church. Continues at a religious school even though he doesn't believe in god. Did he get a scholarship? Is this the only school that had an interfaith program? Does Chris ever make a decision for himself?
His stories seem apocryphal -- In that they work out perfectly for him. His standing ovation for his courageous high school speech and hug from the guy he was most scared of. The broken glass reflecting the brokenness of his spirit. Both are as believable as any after-school special.
By page 101 I was pretty tired of his uninteresting journey. Chris is really interested in how everything revolves around Chris. There's no sense of anything else going on.
The atheist party - taking his shoes off and being underdressed. He paints himself always as the underdog. The one just trying to do right but snobby atheists call him names and ignore him.
The title itself suggests Chris sees himself as the lone outsider. He was the only gay kid at his school so he took himself out of the system to learn on his own because no one understands him. He's the only one going to the "crack stack" and establishing real relationships because his friends don't understand these people the way Chris does...although he won't engage them fully because how could they understand his lack of faith?
Pious? Is that a word to use?
From page 160 "The activism of my adolescence was defined by self-righteousness..." I would say it's still a large part of Stedman's writing/activism. In every anecdote he sets himself up as the lone understanding hero. The underestimated champion of equal time for all parts of the conversation.
Cloying is the right word.
From Patel's introduction. He finds it hard to picture Hitchens or Dawkins doing something nice for someone. This sort of self congratulatory, patting on the back is again more about being self-righteously smug than about genuine understanding.
In the end I didn't finish the book. I just couldn't take it any more.
librarykath's review against another edition
4.0
Now THIS is the kind of thinking that will change the world.
samsearle's review against another edition
4.0
If you are an atheist and the increasingly xenophobic and disrespectful rants coming from the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens bother you, Chris Stedman's philosophy and actions will probably make you feel better, whilst challenging you to convert your own ethical beliefs into practical action that will materially improve the lives of others.
I thought the book was not without its flaws, one being that the memoir parts were simply not as engaging as the call to action in the final part. In this respect, reading Stedman's blog, Non Prophet Status, is probably just as rewarding as this book. The book does provide a lot of good pointers to further resources though, and I would recommend it just on the basis that I found a really neat summary of my worldview very neatly expressed by Stedman towards the end. He writes, "I am far more concerned about whether people are pluralistic in their worldview - if they oppose totalitarianism and believe those of different religious and non-religious identities should be free to live as they choose and cooperate around shared values - than I am about whether someone believes in God or not."
I thought the book was not without its flaws, one being that the memoir parts were simply not as engaging as the call to action in the final part. In this respect, reading Stedman's blog, Non Prophet Status, is probably just as rewarding as this book. The book does provide a lot of good pointers to further resources though, and I would recommend it just on the basis that I found a really neat summary of my worldview very neatly expressed by Stedman towards the end. He writes, "I am far more concerned about whether people are pluralistic in their worldview - if they oppose totalitarianism and believe those of different religious and non-religious identities should be free to live as they choose and cooperate around shared values - than I am about whether someone believes in God or not."
lutheranjulia's review
3.0
4 stars for content, 2.5 for style. Worth the read and I can imagine instances wherein I would recommend this book.