Tambasco claims that we have misunderstood the atonement of Christ since Anselm. Tambasco claims that the Apostle Paul, for instance, maintained no concept of laying the sins of one (man) to the account of Another (Christ). Tambasco claims we have, for centuries, only "misunderstood" that Jesus died to pay for our sins as a reconciliation between God and man. Jesus Himself understood His atoning sacrifice as payment for our individual sins. Just for starters (and in addition to the Hebrew Scripture precendent of sacrifice), we have Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 10:45, John 1:29, John 19:30 (wherein "tetelestai" mean that payment was rendered in full), Acts 20:28, Romans 3:23-25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, I Corinthians 15:2-4, II Corinthians 5:14, II Corinthians 5:18-19, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:11-15, Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 10:10, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 4:10, and 1 John 2:2 speaking against Tambasco's attempt at theological sexiness. It is no wonder that he appears on reading lists with authors like Crossan, Borg, and Funk, all of the pseudo-academic, soundly discounted Jesus Seminar.

Anselm did not create the modern notion of atonement. Rather, he publicized biblical principle. Christ, the perfect expression of God's love for man, willingly died as payment for sins. He was and is the perfect reconciliation between God's justice and mercy.

in a brief book (114pp), anthony tambasco has taken another look at saint paul's concept of atonement. you may or may not agree with the conclusions that the author reaches (who ever agrees with everything in any book), but you gain from the author's insights. unless you force the bible to mean what your religion teaches, rather than humbly study the bible for what the bible has to say.

I've always been pretty interested in serial killers, and naturally came across Ed Gein's name in a few "collections" of serial killer biographies. Wandering through the bookstore oneday, I picked up "Ed Gein: Psycho." That's what it says on the cover. Inside, it's called "Ed Gein: Psycho!" The exclamation mark tells you all you probably need to know about the mentality of Paul Anthony Woods, the "author" of this self-loving piece of garbage.

Many, many reviewers already have pointed out the things that turn one's stomach about this book. The writing is sophomoric and ridiculous, and way, way, WAY too much liberty is taken with the story, which, ideally, is non-fiction. The imagined conversations, thoughts, and feelings of Ed that the author relays are ridiculous, and the tone of the book is really grating. I mean, Ed Gein was a really odd duck who did some really creepy and bad things, but he's a person of some note. To read Woods refer to him as "our boy" in certain passages makes me angry. The cavalier style with which it is written is really smarmy, and one can imagine Woods sitting at his typewriter, smiling at his own wit, patting himself on the back.

Beyond the incredibly obnoxious way in which the book is written (and trust me folks, the author's skills are far below that of the average writer who gets published) and the silly "conversations" between Ed and his fellow Wisconsonians (who, in the book, have a kind of...gulp...southern drawl?), there is the fact that no new information is presented, and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know from reading 10 or 15 pages in another book. And the last part, where the author "examines" the pop-culture that has been created around the Gein legend only confirmed my suspicions throughout the rest of the book...he's just a silly, pseudo-psychologist fan with no respect for his elders.

Pass!

I recently saw a movie about Ed Gein on cable - the film was actually a pretty decent and somewhat engrossing account of Ed Gein, especially if you are unfamiliar with him. I was surprised by how little I new of the man and his atrocious proclivities. When I was a teen, I went through a period of intense interest in serial killers and I read several biographies about the most famous -- many of these books and many other novels made mention of the man, but I had no idea he was so off the charts in terms of his psychosis. After seeing the movie, I wanted to learn more -- I had no recommendations but I was able to find this book in the local bookstore, so I picked it up even though my hands-on examination hinted at its weaknesses. Even though my expectations were low, I found it to be even less than I expected - It was too short and too...what's the word...dramaticized. I was unable to differentiate the author's creative license from reality. Many of the conversations are unquoted and un-referenced, so I assume the author used his creative license judiciously, which is not what I was looking for. I was looking for a more in-depth analysis of the man, his behavior, and I was hoping for a real glimpse into his mind. What I found felt to me to be too speculative and way too thin. I agree with another reviewer that the book was sensationalistic and far from authoritative. The final chapters belong in a history of horror movies book, not in a book about a man and his crimes. I gave it a 2 only because it was at least somewhat informative -- it confirmed many aspects of the movie I saw (I'd recommend it if I remembered the title) -- in fact, it was so close to the film, even in its pacing, I wouldn't be surprised if the author or the book were involved in the movie's production. If you are looking for a fast read to introduce you to a dramatic version of Ed Gein, this book is a decent choice, but if you want more substance and depth, look elsewhere...

I bought this book because I thought it would give me more details about weirdo serial killer Ed Gein, after I had read Deviant by Harold Schector. I was sorely disappointed. Psycho doesn't really go extensively into more facts about this interesting man and I firmly believe that Deviant does. This book is too short. The final chapters rave on about the movies,songs and comics they made about him and even though that has some indirect relationship to the man, I mean really... what does it have to do with Ed Gein? Ed Gein was probably unaware that any movies were being made about him while he was in the institution and he certainly wasn't like the Zodiac Killer; he didn't care.
The story is that Ed Gein was raised by a strictly religious mother, Augusta Gein and an apathetic father who took to drinking heavily to escape his mundane existence. Ed Gein idolized his mother, like his brother too but Edward Theodore Gein was more of a momma's boy.
Ed's brother Henry dies in a fire and there is suspicion that Ed had something to do with it but there is no proof.
Later, when Ed's mother dies, after his father, Ed takes to grave-robbing and wearing human faces as masks over his face.Not to mention he makes furniture out of human skin. Ed denies that he has sexual intercourse with these corpses because they smell too bad but who knows?
After Ed dies in 1984 of respiratory illness, he becomes a hero.Maybe we are living in a sick society where a murderer of two, possibly three women is considered a hero.
I recommend Deviant by Harold Schector. Avoid this one.

If the authors decided to look at the sunsolve bugs online, may they might get the hint that the book is out of date.

If I had a choice of less than one star .....

Maybe it's because the book is 5 yrs old, but I have found it to be of little to no use. The std Sun books and the man pages are giving me far more info. I have been especially disappointed in the total lack of info on the sysidcfg file. This is an essential file, and the book doesn't even mention it.

Very well written but SERIOUSLY out of date. I gave it away a couple of weeks after buying it and reading Sun's Advanced Installation Guides

Tambasco is a name-caller. Everyone who isn't theologically liberal in an extreme fashion Tambasco refers to as a "fundamentalist". While I refer here partly to his lectures, his book reflects this bent. Tambasco often engages in pseudo-intellectual bullying. It is his common method. And what is this about Paul not believing in Jesus' sin-erasing sacrifice? In the context of the entire New Testament -- my goodness -- this is not scholarship, but intential obstinacy, methinks.