Karen Armstrong on Religion

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/

Some people will find what she says to be beyond heretical, others might find some resonances there... I'm just interested in reactions, but keep 'em polite.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

::wrinkles nose::

Welcome to the wonderful mystical world of paganism.

[]http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/Rudywoofs/zwhistling.gif[/]

[Pockey]

Regarding her discussion of the golden rule, she said Confucius was the first to discuss this about 500 years before Christ, and that Rabbi Hillel also taught the golden rule. On the surface this might seem true, but taking a look at what they said, along with others who have taught this, there is a difference. For example:

Confucius said "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others."

Rabbi Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man."

Mahabharata from Hinduism says "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself."

Tobit said "What is displeasing to thyself, that do not unto any other."

But what Jesus said was [:"blue"]"Do to others what you would have them do to you".[/]

Notice that what the others said was passive and taught refrainment, whereas what Jesus said is active/positive.

[Bravus]

Great point, Sid.

[Planey]

I think there are a quite a few members of CA who would resonate strongly with this part of the interview:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And I think we've become rather stupid in our scientific age about religion. If you'd presented some of these literalistic readings of the Bible to people in the pre-modern age, they would have found it rather obtuse. They'd have found it incomprehensible that people really believe the first chapter of Genesis is an account of the origins of life.

So how should we read the story of creation in Genesis?

Well, it's not a literal account because it's put right next door to another account in Chapter 2, which completely contradicts it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

On the other hand, I totally disagree with this viewpoint but I am reluctantly coming to hold the opinion that I am in a very small minority in this.

Maybe Karen Armstrong is correct and our image of a loving personal God who is interested in each of us individually and who, indeed, loves each of us individually is "infantile".

Graeme

[Bravus]

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Sorry it felt that way.

I think you may have read something into the article that I didn't see there (which might just mean I read with blinkers on, though). I read what she was describing as 'infantile' as the situation where God is small, and basically is just a supernatural guarantor for my own prejudices. As someone else said 'When God hates the same people you hate, you know you've created Him in your image'.

I didn't agree with everything Karen Armstrong said, by any means, but I did find the breadth of her knowledge of world religions interesting, and seeing Christianity placed within that kind of context was interesting to me. I also saw there something I've been talking about here for a while: we fail to really appreciate the reality of a God who is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Our God is too small.

[Planey]

I am very small. Considering the size of our universe (maybe infinite?) I am a tiny speck on a tiny speck of a planet on an insignificant arm of an ordinary run-of-the-mill galaxy among a seemingly infinite number of galaxies. My God must be small enough to care about me. My God must be large enough to hold the whole universe in the palm of His hand.

Can I understand everything about my God? Not a chance. Do I need to know everything about my God? No. I only need to understand as much as He has revealed of Himself.

Does that make my understanding of God infantile? Maybe. Does the fact that my understanding of God is limited therfore invalidate the part I do understand? Must I understand everything before I can say I have a personal relationship with Him?

Is this what Paul meant when he said that we must put aside childish things?

Graeme

[Nan]

Our God is not willing that any should perish.

We are told to 'cast all our care upon Him, because He cares for' us.

If we accept EGW's point, we will believe that Jesus would have died for one of us.

Our God is BIG enough that He can show individual care for each and all of us, while maintaining the rest of His amazing creation.