This book was a gift to me from a Methodist minister, someone I like and respect. I assume it was given to me in good faith (no pun intended) with the expectation that it would change my outlook, perhaps inspire me to "return to god." What it has done is reinforce my conscious, informed decision to part ways with dogma and blind obedience by reminding me of all the reasons I left this bullshit behind in the first place. But, in the spirit in which it was gifted, and as an act of friendship and courtesy, I agreed I would read it and write an honest review. What follows is by no means a thorough critique. I literally took issue with every single page. A thorough evaluation would be much longer than the book itself and neither you nor I have that kind of time, so a few points of contention will have to suffice. Let us begin:
"The Bible (the source of our information about Jesus) tells us something that staggers our imagination. It tells us that Jesus was God in human form. He was a man, fully and completely. But He was more than that: He was also God. He was not just a godly man; He was God Himself, wrapped in human flesh." (pg. 46)
Mr. Graham was correct about one thing, this does stagger the imagination, but only because it flies in the face of reason and critical thought. The bible, specifically the new testament, teaches that there is only one god who exists in three forms: a father, a son, and a "holy ghost." This is a theological concept that evolved as a means to an end. To remain monotheistic [one god] early christians had to resolve a dilemma: how do we reconcile the existential question of there being only one god and still stay true to the supposition that Jesus is himself a god? The concept of trinity provided an answer. But if Jesus was indeed the offspring of god, that would make him a god as well, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as polytheism [more than one god]. Let’s break it down:
I could say that the concept of trinity, about how Jesus who is theoretically god has conversations with himself, how he asks himself when he sacrificed himself why has himself forsaken himself, is absolutely ludicrous, but I won't. I could point out that when he died on the cross god was both dead and alive at the same time, but I won't. I could take the argument that was put forth to me by an evangelical christian, that god is one soul with three minds, by asking the question: what would be the point? I could propose that three minds that cannot disagree are redundant, and if they can then there is no consensus of the soul. But that would be too logical.
I'm certainly no biblical scholar, but searches on the singularity of the christian god produce a multitude of verses: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no god" Isaiah 44:6, "The lord is one" Deuteronomy 6:4, etc etc etc Or how about all the verses where Jesus himself implied that he is something less than god: "The father is greater than I" John 14:28, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except god alone" Mark 10:18. No trinity in these verses. In fact, my search for the keyword "trinity" in literal verse turned up 0 hits. I could find no "trinity" or "trinity doctrine" verbatim in scripture. Trinity exists because it has to exist in order to make sense of this mess.
Back to Mr. Graham . . .
"Satan rejoices when we are inconsistent, because he knows that an inconsistent Christian is an ineffective Christian - or worse." (pg. 189)
If satan rejoices at christian inconsistencies then the bible must indeed be his favorite book. If we are to believe what is written, satan is the quintessential fallen angel and god himself created angels presumably to deliver messages and protect humans. Why? Why would an omnipotent god need winged helpers? No angels = no mutiny, no mutiny = no satan, problem solved. And if god made the angels, why did so many go bad? An omniscient god would have known they would go bad. An omnipotent god could have made them differently. A benevolent god would have wanted to save them. If satan is evil then evil is a conscious and purposeful construct of god OR god made a mistake. There is no third alternative.
Satan, as he exists in the new testament, is a projection of christian doctrine onto the jewish bible. I could find no instance in the old testament where satan opposes the will of god. When satan appears in old verse, which is surprisingly rare, he is either acting with god's permission or under god's direct instructions. Even when satan tests Job [Job 1:6-12] he first requests permission from god. God grants his permission but gives satan a strict set of guidelines, and satan does not deviate from those guidelines.
While we're on the subject of satan, let me address satan in the garden of eden: I was brought up to believe that the talking serpent in eden was indeed the devil in animal form. This is simply not the case in the Jewish bible. In Judaic format, it is just a talking serpent, an animal of fable and folklore. The concept of satan-as-serpent or serpent-as-satan is a gentile invention, a come-lately christian overlay of their doctrine onto Jewish scripture. And herein lies my beef with the christian version; genesis 3:14 states that snakes slither on their bellies to this day as god's punishment. Why? Why would god punish snakes (and their descendants) (for ETERNITY) if satan was the culprit? Either there is no satan in this story at all OR god is an asshole. You decide.
So... The Journey is a DNF. I plowed through 62% of this pointless endeavor and threw in the proverbial towel. In the end, I believe Mr. Graham to be, at heart, a good man. An indoctrinated, misguided, mistaken, puppet - but nice, and with excellent oratory skills. I truly don't take issue with those that have faith. It was once put to me this way: If it gives you comfort to believe that invisible unicorns live in your shoes then I will pat you on the head and say, 'well good for you!' But, if you try to force me to wear MY shoes a certain way, so as not to upset the unicorns, that's where I draw the line.
In the end, this review has been an exercise in futility. If you started reading this as a person of faith then nothing I've written here will have swayed you otherwise. In fact, I'll wager you poo-poo'd me about halfway through the first paragraph, somewhere around "this bullshit," and never made it this far. If, on the other hand, you are secular, agnostic, or downright atheistic, then the only thing new you'll come away with is a friend (me 😊). Either way, it's late, I'm tired, goodnight.