Customer Reviews


13 Reviews
5 star:
 (4)
4 star:
 (2)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:
 (2)
1 star:
 (3)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


59 of 60 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Old Testament Biblical Ethics - an introduction.
I had never come across Paul Copan before until this book. I then bought the Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion and was surprised to learn that he is actually a Philosopher of Ethics Professor. With this in mind it seemed appropriate that he write a book on biblical ethics.

A brief summary of the book's chapters is given as follows:

1 &...
Published on 27 Jan 2011 by Mr. B. Shepherd

versus
33 of 46 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Desperate attempt to make the OT PC!
(Warning - contains one section that some readers may find slightly offensive)

First of all (In the interests of full disclosure!) I'm writing this review as a Christian - someone who would presumably be expected to lap up every word of this book with zealous delight.

However...

I thought the first few chapters were excellent, but as the...
Published on 2 May 2011 by J. Scott


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

59 of 60 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Old Testament Biblical Ethics - an introduction., 27 Jan 2011
By 
Mr. B. Shepherd "BLS" (England, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
I had never come across Paul Copan before until this book. I then bought the Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion and was surprised to learn that he is actually a Philosopher of Ethics Professor. With this in mind it seemed appropriate that he write a book on biblical ethics.

A brief summary of the book's chapters is given as follows:

1 & 2. These two chapters are a brief survey of the comments by the "New Atheists", about the Old Testament God. Copan suggests that his book is a response to these comments. He suggests that the book is to educate non-believers and believers alike, to teach them things that they have not bothered to learn.
3. Is an assessment of whether God craves attention, or whether being religious and worshipping God is a way of improving the self.
4. Is an assessment of the covenant, and whether picking one people is horrid and discriminatory or a good way to benefit the whole of humanity, i.e. an example to lead the rest of us.
5. Is an assessment of the Isaac story and the crucifixion. Is God a child abuser or man's promised saviour?
6. Is an assessment of the bible laws. It considers whether they are repressive or help to develop holiness. It also then considers the is/ought fallacy.
7 & 8. These chapters carry on from chapter 6 by considering the biblical commandments on kosher foods. Are these crazy or do they have a purpose, i.e. by regulating the self we help to improve the self. These are then cross referenced with the New Testament's argument on kosher foods and justification by faith alone.
9. Is an assessment of whether the biblical laws are barbaric and cruel. For example: sabbath breakers, drunkards, eye for an eye etc. This chapter assesses the deeper meaning of the laws, i.e. that they are meant to make the self holy and promote righteousness. These are then crossed referenced to the New Testament's teachings on righteousness. Finally, it shows how these ideas have influenced modern ideas.
10. Is an assessment of whether Israel discriminates against women. Again, this chapter looks into the deeper meanings of the laws, i.e. the image of God idea and the equality of all humans. It then shows how modern ideas of female liberation actually owe their origin to feminist theology, which comes from the bible.
11. Is a carry on from chapter 10 and considers the biblical positions on polygamy, concubines and bride prices. Are they God promoted, or man's insisted? Is this what God intended, or simply allowed due to the hardness of man's heart?
12 - 14. These chapters offer an assessment of slavery in Israel. Were the slaves better treated in Israel than the rest of the world? Is there a deeper meaning to the laws? It also draws reference to the 7 year jubilee, an event few actually understand the meaning of. It firstly examines how radical Israel's ideas on slaves were, and then shows how all modern ideas on equality owe their origin to the bible.
15 - 17. These chapters are possibly the weakest chapters. They are an assessment of the holy wars of Israel, most noticeably the Canaanite massacres. This chapter argues that the wars were limited, i.e. a one off justification given by God (the weakest argument -, it basically says, God said it's ok so it's ok). These chapters then argue that these wars were not directed against the people themselves but against their cruelty and ritualistic acts. It argues that the Canaanites were certainly not exterminated in a genocide fashion as they are still drawn reference to over 2000 years after the alleged event. Finally, it argues that it's easy to criticise these readings given the modern world but to truly understand them the cruelty of the world at that time needs to be understood and therefore some historical background information is needed - which the author then gives. All this is meant to somehow show that the wars themselves were ok. I must admit that whilst these chapters included a lot of valuable and interesting information, they did not convince me.
18. This chapter considers whether religion causes violence or promotes unity and self improvement. This chapter is really a response to Hitchen's argument that "religion poisons everything". It also considers whether the Crusades were really as bad/or the same as the modern Islamic Jihad.
19. Is a brief consideration whether morality functions fine without God. Are we simply able to say that we're just atoms and that our actions don't matter? Does this then impact our ideas on morality? To be honest the author doesn't devote enough attention to these issues to make this chapter worthwhile. His central argument is that no, having God helps, but of course as we're all made in God's image we don't need him and that we can be moral without him - but having him helps make us better.
20. Is a brief assessment on how much the modern world has been influenced by Jesus, and argues that he is far more important than many of us imagine him to be; to our history, culture and ideals. Again, this topic itself could full a whole book and so whilst mentioned in summary, fails to give a good meaty argument.

My impressions are as follows:

If you have never studied any form of political / legal readings of the Old Testament ideologies then this book is sure to amaze you. What it will do though is to serve to bridge the gap between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Once you have read this book, that age old idea that the Gods of each somehow look different will disappear. In this sense the book is truly a must for the enquiring casual religious reader.

However, if you are an atheist then this book is likely to answer some of your questions, and show you how some of what you've read is not as simple as its made out to be by some of the "New Atheists". However, I'm pretty sure that the chapters on the Canaanites are unlikely to convince you, if they could not convince me - a believer.

One thing it will stress to you is that none of the texts can be taken simply at face value, and do require a lot of assessment and deliberation before any meanings can becomes apparent. Failing to do this will produce bizarre results, but this should be expected. As these bizarro readings, usually a product of pure fundamentalist literalist readings, are expected they are hardly surprising or really worth considering, and as such are not the "knock down" type arguments they are often thought to be.

The last 2 chapters really deserve to be books in themselves, but of course one has to understand that the book itself was designed to focus on Old Testament Ethics and God, rather than moral philosophy and modern political history. In this sense these chapters need forgiveness.

The presentation of the book was nice with a decent sized front. The book itself was just over 200 pages long. The book is fully referenced, and indexed. It also includes a list of discussion points on each chapter at the back of the book, which are meant to help any church/biblical study group consider these topics in more details in informal group discussions.

Overall, an enjoyable book, but not an infallible one. This doesn't stop me recommending it to everyone, especially believers who will no doubt benefit the most from it. I would argue that all believers have a duty to know there stuff on this kind of stuff more than any atheist. As such this book is important and a worthwhile buy.

However, it does lose 1 star from me for failing to convince me on the Canaanite issue.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Makes sense of the OT, 19 Feb 2011
By 
M Wood - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
This book is well written, and is mainly aimed at an audience who are familiar with the Christian faith, but who find some of the passages in the Old Testament to be rather difficult to comprehend. The book takes the reader through all the issues commonly held up by the New Athiests and shows how they fit into the big picture of God's love for his creation - mankind.

Copan gives the context and rational behind the issues these passages raise. To be fair, there isn't much new information in the book, but the traditional views of these passages are combined with a good understanding of the problems they raise for Christian today. It makes for an easy and informative read. I found it useful and I thoroughly recommended for all.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Good answers to tough questions, 30 Sep 2011
By 
Yves (Switzerland) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
Exodus 34:6 is the most quoted verse within the Bible.
Sadly since our culture today is so far removed from that when the Old Testament was written our lack of understanding key details and contexts can leave us scratching our heads when we read Exodus 34:6 and see other passages that seemingly contradict it!
Thankfully Paul Copan has put the time and effort into explaining the details that were plain and simple to ancient Israel but no longer evident to us!
Copan does a fantastic job of explaining those Bible "difficulties" so much so that you can see how accurate Exodus 34:6 really is.
This book was recommended by William Lane Craig in his famous debate with Sam Harris.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


33 of 46 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Desperate attempt to make the OT PC!, 2 May 2011
By 
J. Scott "JS" (Northern Ireland) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
(Warning - contains one section that some readers may find slightly offensive)

First of all (In the interests of full disclosure!) I'm writing this review as a Christian - someone who would presumably be expected to lap up every word of this book with zealous delight.

However...

I thought the first few chapters were excellent, but as the book got down to the more nitty-gritty specifics, I continually found my credulity being stretched to breaking point. It started when the author started giving 'reasons' why certain foods were kosher and some weren't. As someone who's been studying the Bible and the culture of Bible times for well over 30 years (yeah, I'm really old!) I found myself totally unconvinced.

Sometimes it feels as if the author is trying just TOO hard to make the OT more acceptable to modern sensibilities, and the results feel very laboured - they just don't ring true.

In fact, the book feels like it's based on arguments by the type of academics who desperately strive to make a name for themselves by coming up with some 'new' thesis about a bible text.

While the author claims to be taking us back to the culture of the OT world, all too often he gets caught up in issues which - while they are big deals to 21st century westerners - may not even have crossed the minds of people living in that culture.

For example, in dealing with slavery in the New Testament world, it's going MUCH too far to say that the Christians somehow 'chose' to subtly undermine the institution. I've no doubt that it WAS undermined by the Christian message, but I'm equally certain that it wasn't a deliberate agenda. The truth is, people living in that culture could no more have contemplated life without slavery than WE can imagine life without electricity.

Then, in dealing with Paul's letter to Philemon, Copan brushes aside nearly 2000 years of how Christians have understood that text, suggesting that it refers NOT to an escaped slave, but to an estranged biological brother!!!

NB - The following paragraph contains some sexual material which may be offensive to some readers - but perhaps it's better you encounter it here first, rather than after you've paid money for this book!

Possibly the most glaring instance of 'not ringing true' comes in the chapter where the author cites Jerome Walsh's theory that the punishment for a particular crime mentioned in the OT is NOT what the text plainly says (i.e., that a woman committing the crime should have her hand chopped off), but that it ACTUALLY means that she should be publicly humiliated by having her pubic hair shaved off!!!

The words 'Give Me A Break' are the only way I can respond to that!!! If you're familiar at all with the world of the OT, can you even imagine such a thing in Israel??? The author's argument that the Hebrew word 'kaph' can refer to the genital region as well as the hand is, to put it mildly, not exactly compelling.

I've no doubt this book is well-meaning, and at times it's fascinating reading (in a "YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!" kinda way) but honestly, I can't recommend it at all to anyone who's looking for a deeper understanding of the Bible. In fact, I think some of these crazy theories may actually be roadblocks on the way to that deeper understanding. Even when the book is on the right track about something, it overstates it to the point of caricature.

The bottom line - by the time you get to the end of this book, you'll be left wondering if you can believe or take ANYTHING in the Old Testament at face value.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


16 of 24 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not what it says on the tin, 29 Aug 2011
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
I am an atheist and I also teach RE. I thought this book would be a light read examining some of the more contentious parts of the OT. This book couldn't be further away from that ideal; perhaps a more suitable title would be 'a defence of the cultural practices of the ancient Israelite nation'.
This book isn't balanced; it sets out to make a point, often on shaky foundations. I actually found myself putting down the book in anger fairly often, amazed at the sweeping generalisations or the absolute refusal to recognise what the issue is. My favourite examples of thess include: the assertion that God isn't proud because there's nothing he can't do, the defence of Abraham's decision to comply with God's command to sacrifice Isaac (with virtually no mention of the morality of God commanding this in the first place!) and the fact that the issue of homosexuality is pretty much ignored. Read it for yourself and you'll find many examples of Copan making unjustified leaps in logic and assumption that his worldview are shared by the reader and therefore don't need to be justified (for example, Copan refers to sexual practices in other comparable near east religions as aberrations because he believes the ideal standard should be monogamy).
Yet despite this, there's something about this book that's incredibly readable. It is certainly well researched and does an excellent job of putting Israelite society into context. I wouldn't recommend this book to anybody that isn't used to picking out personal views but I have genuinely found it useful, just not in the way I expected.
Still, I can't help but think that Copan's arguments are often rather weak because he doesn't stick to the issue of God's morality.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A valiant attempt, that feels lacking in execution, 13 Feb 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
I've been reading, "Is God a Moral Monster", as part of my reading on a theology essay, as to how God could allow the Conquest of Canaan.

The book starts off and seems to hit all the right notes. Copan sets out to tackle a lot of the objections that the 'New Atheists' (i.e. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other similar) make against the moral character of God, and particularly how it appears in the Old Testament. Copan wants to deal with a lot of these issues head on.

Unfortunately his treatment of the Canaanite issue is unsatisfactory. He goes to great lengths to qualify the Biblical text as we have it in Joshua to make it less offensive, by appealing to Ancient Near Eastern Context. In doing so he argues that when all the inhabitants of Jericho were killed in Joshua 6-7 - no women and children were involved, it was just a fortress, and there were probably no more than 600 fighting age men there.

Of course we need to make sure that we're reading the Biblical text properly, both within the context that God has given us, and it's context with its original hearers. But this answer doesn't get "God off the hook" so to speak. The problem the modern reader will have is that God still commanded the destruction of Jericho and the deaths of 600. All Copan manages to achieve is a moving of the goalposts.

A much better book on the Canaanite question is Christopher J. H. Wright's The God I Don't Understand. That deals with the problem in a much more sober minded fashion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars God Bless Paul Copan, 9 Sep 2013
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
I've never read any book by Paul Copan. this was the book for me I really love it. its well introduced, well documented!! this is book is for True Christians a must read for all the Christians who want to understand in deep the OT. Excellent introduction against the Atheists!! touch down!
Do not listen to other comments below as God is Almighty and if he judged he judged fairly! and we are all his creations and must submit to our God we ought to do that. He rules over us and He created us, we owe Him all.
the Author gave us a well documented details about society in the East far ancient society. but wherever we go the laws of God is the same and God remains the same He will not change His ways completely for human beings. Mankind have to change for Him. It is a truth that we are actually living in the last days!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


20 of 32 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Makes Dawkins look rather silly, 17 Jan 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
Takes Dawkins' religion of 'evangelical atheism', and pulls the rug by undermining his rhetoric regarding the God of the Old Testament. Revealing the Old Testament God to be the emotional, loving, caring Creator as revealed further in the New Testament
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 4 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Disturbing and fatally flawed, 2 Jan 2014
By 
Mr. A. P. Lloyd "efctony" (London) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
Well, is God a moral monster? In looking at Copan's answer to the question I'll draw a distinction between "factual" monstrosity and "moral" monstrosity.

A factual statement does not automatically coincide with a moral statement. If person A clenches his fist and brings the fist, at speed, into contact with the face of person B then person A has punched person B. This is just a plain fact.
Whether person A, though, did wrong depends on other factors. If person B was trying to rob person A then person A has a good case for arguing that he bears no guilt for the punch. The fact is unavoidable, the guilt not.
Absent God and a certain view of ethics, though, there are some actions that are universally condemnable and, so, we can move straight from establishing the facts to (adversely) judging the morals of the situation. Genocide, for example, has no excuses. If person A attempted to wipe out a complete people, then there is no argument about whether they did so wrongly. Establishing that person A did attempt to wipe out a complete people is enough to establish the fact of genocide and moral culpability.

Let's call acts and characteristics where establishing the facts also establishes the moral judgement "monstrous". Dawkins' characterisation of the Old Testament God gives some examples:

"(J)ealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Whether someone is jealous is a fact, as is whether they are proud, or petty or (given a concept of "justice") unjust, and so on. If they exhibit these characteristics we can say that they are "factually monstrous" and, as all of these (especially together) need only the fact to be established to establish moral culpability, if they are factually monstrous then they are morally monstrous.

There is a problem with this reasoning where one subscribes, as Copan does, to the idea that morality derives from God ("divine command ethics" or "DCE"). If morality derives from God then God can do no wrong. Were God to exhibit these characteristics then He would not be morally monstrous, under DCE the idea is absurd. God would, though, still be factually monstrous: if He were jealous then it would be a fact that He was jealous.
- Ignoring DCE anyone who is factually monstrous is also morally monstrous,
- With DCE the factual and moral monstrosity are separate issues.

As a result, without DCE, a defence of the Old Testament God requires an argument that these apparent facts are nothing of the sort. Either that the events described did not happen, or they have been mischaracterised as jealous, proud, petty and unjust ethnic cleansing, misogyny, homophobia and so on.
DCE, though, gives Copan an alternative defence. Yes, God may be a jealous, proud, petty and unjust....but He is morally entitled to be. A God may be a jealous, proud, petty and unjust.... and still be good.

And this argument Copan relies on.

Perhaps, rightly, thinking that showing that God is not a factual monster is more persuasive, Copan begins by arguing that the straightforward reading is incorrect. Things have been misinterpreted, the Mosiac law was an "interim" measure, the laws on slavery were a great improvement on other laws in the region at the time, and so on. But there are places where this argument fails.

Copan seems to realise that he is not persuasive in arguing that the genocides and ethnic cleansing were not genocides and ethnic cleansing and argues, in effect, that God judged and if He judged then it's right. No argument is offered to persuade us that the supernatural killing of Uzzah for touching the ark in order to protect it was not petty, unjust, and vindictive other than it not being petty, unjust, and vindictive if God decides that's what should happen. Copan defends the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath by referencing other draconian punishments. "Often, when first-time violations were committed in the midst of this fledgling nation, a harsh punishment came with it." (p 89) Copan admits the facts of the monstrosity and relies on this being God's decision for a moral defence.

The starkest example of the application of DCE comes when Copan references a study on attitudes to the destruction of Jericho. Two versions of the story of Jericho were put to schoolchildren, the biblical story and one re-set in China without the intervention of God. The children disapproved of the actions when in a non-theological setting but assessed the self-same facts approvingly when God was involved. Copan approves of this difference: God could morally require factually monstrous acts because He had judged the Canaanite culture "irredeemable" and had the right so to do (p161).
This is disturbing. That there are adherents to DCE means there is a class of person for whom nothing is so vile, so monstrous, so disgusting that, were they to believe it was commanded by God, they would give the vile, monstrous, disgusting actions their wholehearted approval. More, we must be wary that there might be no act so vile that these people would not, on that account, refuse to believe that it was commanded by God.

Disturbing, but is the book any good? I do not hold to DCE, but there are arguments for the view that can be made. Following from this there is a defence of the Old Testament God that could be made: it doesn't matter how factually monstrous He is, He is not morally monstrous.

As noted above, though, Copan does not limit himself to this defence. Copan also seeks to remove the impression that the Old Testament God is factually monstrous. It's a difficult task and, ironically, the attempt just makes matters worse (at least to this reader). There is always the retort to the Dawkins-like objector that they simply misrepresent the Old Testament. Perhaps the objector has not even read the Old Testament. Or, if they have, they haven't studied it. Or if they have then they have missed out historical context, or their understanding of Hebrew is poor, or... But here we have someone who has studied the Old Testament, who has researched the historical context, who has looked into the Hebrew behind the translations. Reading Copan we can be confident that, no, the death penalty for dissolute sons is not a misreading. Neither are God's fits of rage when the Israelites flirt with other gods, or His prohibitions against intermarriage. As one, vicariously, studies the Old Testament it seems to be better established that God really is all those things Dawkins accused him of being, not less. Together with that, many of Copan's defences fall well short of the mark.
Take God's "jealousy". Copan points out, rightly, that some jealousy is good. He gives the example of a woman who, hyperbolically, threatens to shoot her husband if he were ever unfaithful. (p 35). This would be fine for a defence of a God who emphasised His devotion to a people by, jokingly, threatening to enslave them all if they ever crossed him. It's not a defence of a God who actually does that (Judges 3:8). The jealousy of God described by Copan is not the jealousy of the not-actually-trigger-happy wife. God's jealousy is the jealousy of the husband who slaps his wife for smiling at the waiter. It is the jealousy of the wife who hits her husband because he went to the office Christmas party, were there were other women in a social situation.

Misogyny? One of Copan's counter-arguments is that mothers are mentioned alongside fathers in a number of places! His counter to the enforced marriage of a raped woman is that was for her benefit. I find this argument rather repulsive, it's reminiscent of slave owners and colonialists pleas that their actions were there to help the (inferior) slaves and natives.

The nadir is Copan's argument that the Israelites' interactions with the Canaanites, Amorites, Perizzites, Amalekites et. al. weren't "ethnic cleansing".

There were other peoples in Canaan when the Israelites turned up. Sometimes the Israelites moved in and intermingled, sometimes the Israelites accepted others into their lands, sometimes the Israelites had good relations with their neighbours. But sometimes the Israelites invaded other people's lands with the express aim of moving them off the land and the Israelites on.

To move into a people's territory with the express intention of removing that people from that territory so the territory can be occupied solely by another people is ethnic cleansing. And when Israelites invaded other people's lands with the express aim of moving them off the land and the Israelites on they ethnically cleansed. It is as clear as forming a fist and bringing it rapidly into contact with someone's chin is punching them. It's a simple fact of the matter.

Copan argues that, elsewhere in the Bible, God issues demands for racial inclusivity. That, elsewhere in the Bible, the Israelites followed this command. That, elsewhere in the Bible, the Israelites were pretty hard on themselves. (p 163) This is all utterly irrelevant. It matters not whether they had a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing, whether ethnic cleansing was an aberration or whether they were otherwise really nice guys. It matters not whether the Canaanites deserved to be ethnically cleansed (p 164): if x is an instance of justified ethnic cleansing then x is an instance of ethnic cleansing.
Copan though, just will not have it. We can add to the faults of the DCE adherents the tendency not just to justify the monstrous, not just to accept the monstrous as the word of God but also the willingness to deny the clear evidence of monstrosity staring them in the face.

And a simple refusal to accept the facts in front of you cannot make for a worthwhile work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Blind review, 20 April 2014
By 
Mr. Ian M. Smith (Princes RisboroughEngland) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Is God a Moral Monster? (Paperback)
Haven't read it yet, as I'm working through the Old Testament, as part of an effort to read the whole Bible in a year!

It has raised so many issues, that this book looks as if it may have some insights into the answers I'm looking for
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Is God a Moral Monster?
Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan (Paperback - 1 Jan 2011)
9.28
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews