I was offered this book to review. I wasn't interested but Candleman was sitting in the same room and had been reading a few self-help books lately and I asked him if he would be interested. "Sure I'll take a look." So I wrote back and let Joe know that I wouldn't be reading it, but that my husband would if he still wanted to send a copy. He did.
Here's Candleman's review: You can also read it on his blog: Live and Learn.
I've learned that Shame is a fundamental cause of addiction. Shame as opposed to guilt. The definition I accept is: Guilt - I did wrong. Shame - I am wrong. Clearly shame is damaging as is presupposes that I am fundamentally flawed rather than being a person of divine potential who has made mistakes. Even terrible mistakes. So this title held a bit of intrigue for me and I decided to give it a try. I didn't get very far. While Dopp is witty, I didn't find him to be all that funny, which he was clearly shooting for. Instead I found him irreverent and crass. Even that I endured until he explained that a fundamental principle of his method decried what he called the prideful notion that we might ever become like God.
I believe God is my own Father and that His greatest desire is for His offspring, me and you, to grow to become like Him. Dopp says we are clay in God's jar. I declare that we are not clay in Gods jar, nor are we pawns on His chess board, nor sheep in His pasture nor art in His Gallery. We are not rats in His laboratory we are His own sons and daughters, endowed with divine potentiality. Dopp sees my position as blasphemous. He can think as he wishes. I however, couldn't find enough common ground in our philosophical approaches to change to warrant finishing the book. Our views are built on entirely different foundations.
3 comments:
i like your husband's review! Very honest and forthright. It's a shame that the book is about religion, because I liked the idea of discovering our inner monkeys and why they get us into trouble!
Susan, I'm not really sure the whole book is about religion because Candleman didn't finish it. The author presented his basic philosophy that we are basically puppets in God's hands and since Candleman didn't agree he didn't read further. With such opposing starting view points he didn't think he would agree with much else in the book.
I can understand Candleman giving up on this one, as I would have too. I believe as he does, that we are God's children, and that he wants us to love him like a father, not that we are his little minions to move about at will. I have given up books that are offensive to my sensibilities in the past, so I can understand his wish not to move forward. Thanks for sharing this with us.
Post a Comment