JayL Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Define omnipotence for me. Omnipotence simply means to have unlimited power - or to put that another way, the ability to do anything. The Bible clearly attributes this trait to God, as demonstrated by the following Bible verses: "Jesus looked at them and said, 'This is something people cannot do, but God can do all things.' " Matthew 19:26 "God can do anything." Luke 1:37 (The speaker is the angel Gabriel, who presumably would know!) "Is anything too hard for the Lord? No." Genesis 18:14 (And this time, the speaker is God himself). So according to the Bible, God is clearly omnipotent. Using your definition of omnipotence, the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. God can NOT lie, God can NOT turn into Satan, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his sonother children long distance that an enemy terroristhe (the father) has booby trapped his (his ownfirst son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the son doesother children do not believe it. HeThey thinks histheir father is crazy. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. The son isHis children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? According to the Bible his 'other children' also disobeyed by following the first son. The father provided a way out for them and many of children took advantage of it and got saved from destruction. But not all - - unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 JayL, I should add: I understand from this thread that you have had a very deep experience. I also understand that you are very concerned about death. Indeed, our mortality is always the backdrop for our reflections on living. Some of your remarks about notions like omniscience or omnipotence make it sound as though you see discussions about such things as distractors that take people away from the direct message of the Bible and maybe also from spiritual experience. I don't think a philosophy vs. scripture/experience dichotomy is a real one (maybe you don't think so, either, but it often sounds as though you do). The writers of the scriptures were already confronting philosophical questions. I think your conceptualization of your experience, and your discourse about it, also is molded by theological constructs. My guess, if yours was anything like mine and that of lots of others on here, is that your experience was not simply a brute psychological event, for which later you sought explanation and eventually came up with Christianity. My guess from what you have said is that you understood that you were having an experience with Jesus already, when you were having it. Christian theology was already a structuring element in the form that your experience took for you - no? So my suggestion is, don't push away methods for making sense of the Bible, of life, of language... follow the argument where it leads. If that's what you understand yourself already to be doing, then - dude - get serious! Cheers Thank you so much for your thoughtful suggestion. I know my responses on this board have been quite inadequate. I have been rather busy lately and I really should not spend too much time here. Perhaps I should decrease my participation and try hard for more quality in my posts... ( I can try! ) Thank you all for your comments. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirelien Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Using your definition of omnipotence, the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. God can NOT lie, God can NOT turn into Satan, etc. Oh, so Jesus was lying then when he said that God can do all things! So that I think further demonstrates that the Bible is inconsistent and incoherent on this matter, and thus demonstrates further evidence that the Bible was written by human beings and not inspired by an all perfect divine creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 If you study the official biography of Mohammed, you will find that he was a polygamist, child molester, bandit, rapist, murderer, thief, and slave trader. I cannot think of a capital crime he has not committed. I am pretty sure that Mohammed is in hell. Since you are making a positive, tangible claim that should be verifiable, you should be able to point to references from the Hadaths and Sunnah that declare mohammed a polygamist, child molester, bandit, rapist, murderer, thief, and slave trader. Please provide specific references for these claims. I will say I am no expert in islam, and after reading all about the christian god(s) first hand, I consider it possible that, as with xianity, there is stuff out there revered by muslims that considered critically would cast mohammed in a less than ideal light. Jay, I see that you're back, and you have ignored my request, just as you ignored one of my earlier questions when it got too tough for you to answer and just as you ignored questions of multiple others here when they were too hard to answer. No matter. Not that I have time, but I poked around a little bit. As I said, I am no expert in islam, but mohammed's child wife did ring a bell. Predictably, there is a lot of commentary from detractors, who like you, do not provide references (not to say that islamic writings are not full of objectionable and absurd crap just like christian writings: they are). Just as I implied, moslem apologists seem to pick cherries and go through contortions to defend their objectionable writings, just like xian apologists, and English language hadith passages are not nearly as easy to look up as passages in the bible or the koran. Also unsurprisingly, many basic ideas betrayed the common roots with xianity. The judeo-islamo-christian god already denounced theft from fellow jews, but directed his followers to pillage the spoils of their war conquests. Consistently, mohammed calls for those who steal from fellow muslims to have their hands cut off, but does not have the same compunctions about stealing from non-muslims. In fact, the bible approves of pretty much all of the ills you attribute to mohammed. To be consistent, you would have to be pretty sure that David was also in hell, but you can't say that as a christian because it goes against the bible's portrayal of David as god's golden boy. And, by the way, since when does slave trading land anyone in hell? Slavery is not only condoned in the Old Testament, but also in your own favored New Testament. Since these activities are A-OK with the judeo-islamo-christian god, again I ask: IF the christian hell or the muslim hell exists, which version of god should I try to appease, given that following christ will land me in moslem hell IF it exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prestissimo Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 JayL Include in your studies reading "The history of God" by Karen Armstrong. It's a really really good book. With all the sources in it to back up every claim. Good luck your journey. Please, for the love of mankind, don't see Faith as a virtue, it is only powerful when it is backed up with knowledge. If God is powerful you can communicate to you directly, his old book is not required. There are people like Neale Donald Walsch who claim of a 3rd testament, the NNT you could call it. God spoke to him directly and corrected a few things here and there, just as - apparently - happened in the new testament, which you feel you can discard. If every christian was a 3rd testament christian by the way Walsch's conversation with God happened, The world would be a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his sonother children long distance that an enemy terroristhe (the father) has booby trapped his (his ownfirst son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the son doesother children do not believe it. HeThey thinks histheir father is crazy. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. The son isHis children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? According to the Bible his 'other children' also disobeyed by following the first son. The father provided a way out for them and many of children took advantage of it and got saved from destruction. But not all - - unfortunately. Hey, I think we're starting to converge! Let me get this straight: unbelievers are a threat that will ruin eternity (and therefore must be vanished to the inferno so that they can be separated from the sheep) not because they they raped, pillaged, and murdered, but because, they did not believe fantastical stories in life! Your pesky need to keep qualifying this is getting tedious, but I will summarize one more time: The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? You know what else? There is no phone call, only a primative text laden with errors and contradictions, and unlike the father of your analogy, this father is someone that other children has never seen and has no evidence for: The situation is like this. A "benevolent" person has a son that he raises in his house. The benevolent person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in another house. Then, he secretly inseminates a whole bunch of other women, and the offspring of these unions have no reason to know anything about their bio-dad. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) sends his other children creepy, insane sounding notes that he is their father and that he has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? There. As I said, the "buts" and qualifications have become rather tedious, but I have now incorporated your latest feedback along with a couple of other refinements and corrections and it should have shaped up to reflect eveything we've established. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his sonother children long distance that an enemy terroristhe (the father) has booby trapped his (his ownfirst son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the son doesother children do not believe it. HeThey thinks histheir father is crazy. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. The son isHis children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? According to the Bible his 'other children' also disobeyed by following the first son. The father provided a way out for them and many of children took advantage of it and got saved from destruction. But not all - - unfortunately. Hey, I think we're starting to converge! Let me get this straight: unbelievers are a threat that will ruin eternity (and therefore must be vanished to the inferno so that they can be separated from the sheep) not because they they raped, pillaged, and murdered, but because, they did not believe fantastical stories in life! Your pesky need to keep qualifying this is getting tedious, but I will summarize one more time: The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? You know what else? There is no phone call, only a primative text laden with errors and contradictions, and unlike the father of your analogy, this father is someone that other children has never seen and has no evidence for: The situation is like this. A "benevolent" person has a son that he raises in his house. The benevolent person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in another house. Then, he secretly inseminates a whole bunch of other women, and the offspring of these unions have no reason to know anything about their bio-dad. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) sends his other children creepy, insane sounding notes that he is their father and that he has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? There. As I said, the "buts" and qualifications have become rather tedious, but I have now incorporated your latest feedback along with a couple of other refinements and corrections and it should have shaped up to reflect eveything we've established. This edit-fest of a story is turning into something kind of hilarious. I hate to say it, but I almost wish Thumb could jump in and debate Jay's views. I know for a fact that as a Christian I didn't have beliefs that were quite as wacky as Jay's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prestissimo Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I enjoy the edit-fest. reminds me of what happened to the bible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Did God tell you that my language is from Satan? Because God told me it's ok to say "shit." God also told me that most of the stuff you say is directly from Satan's mouth. God isn't sure why you listen to Satan. I just shrugged. After posting it, I realized that 'shit' is ok with God. ( I cancelled my post. ) So it is entirely possible. But I doubt it.... Anyhow, it is nice to have some fun. And there is nothing wrong with you seeking God and trying to listen to His voice. I have a lot of fun here. It is fun to twist the mind around a bit. We can laugh at each other's lunacy. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his sonother children long distance that an enemy terroristhe (the father) has booby trapped his (his ownfirst son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the son doesother children do not believe it. HeThey thinks histheir father is crazy. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. The son isHis children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? According to the Bible his 'other children' also disobeyed by following the first son. The father provided a way out for them and many of children took advantage of it and got saved from destruction. But not all - - unfortunately. Hey, I think we're starting to converge! Let me get this straight: unbelievers are a threat that will ruin eternity (and therefore must be vanished to the inferno so that they can be separated from the sheep) not because they they raped, pillaged, and murdered, but because, they did not believe fantastical stories in life! Your pesky need to keep qualifying this is getting tedious, but I will summarize one more time: The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? You know what else? There is no phone call, only a primative text laden with errors and contradictions, and unlike the father of your analogy, this father is someone that other children has never seen and has no evidence for: The situation is like this. A "benevolent" person has a son that he raises in his house. The benevolent person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in another house. Then, he secretly inseminates a whole bunch of other women, and the offspring of these unions have no reason to know anything about their bio-dad. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) sends his other children creepy, insane sounding notes that he is their father and that he has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? There. As I said, the "buts" and qualifications have become rather tedious, but I have now incorporated your latest feedback along with a couple of other refinements and corrections and it should have shaped up to reflect eveything we've established. What are we talking about here??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 JayL Include in your studies reading "The history of God" by Karen Armstrong. It's a really really good book. With all the sources in it to back up every claim. Good luck your journey. Please, for the love of mankind, don't see Faith as a virtue, it is only powerful when it is backed up with knowledge. If God is powerful you can communicate to you directly, his old book is not required. There are people like Neale Donald Walsch who claim of a 3rd testament, the NNT you could call it. God spoke to him directly and corrected a few things here and there, just as - apparently - happened in the new testament, which you feel you can discard. If every christian was a 3rd testament christian by the way Walsch's conversation with God happened, The world would be a better place. I am aware of Karen Armstrong and Walsch's work. They are currently not on my reading list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If you study the official biography of Mohammed, you will find that he was a polygamist, child molester, bandit, rapist, murderer, thief, and slave trader. I cannot think of a capital crime he has not committed. I am pretty sure that Mohammed is in hell. Since you are making a positive, tangible claim that should be verifiable, you should be able to point to references from the Hadaths and Sunnah that declare mohammed a polygamist, child molester, bandit, rapist, murderer, thief, and slave trader. Please provide specific references for these claims. I will say I am no expert in islam, and after reading all about the christian god(s) first hand, I consider it possible that, as with xianity, there is stuff out there revered by muslims that considered critically would cast mohammed in a less than ideal light. Jay, I see that you're back, and you have ignored my request, just as you ignored one of my earlier questions when it got too tough for you to answer and just as you ignored questions of multiple others here when they were too hard to answer. No matter. Not that I have time, but I poked around a little bit. As I said, I am no expert in islam, but mohammed's child wife did ring a bell. Predictably, there is a lot of commentary from detractors, who like you, do not provide references (not to say that islamic writings are not full of objectionable and absurd crap just like christian writings: they are). Just as I implied, moslem apologists seem to pick cherries and go through contortions to defend their objectionable writings, just like xian apologists, and English language hadith passages are not nearly as easy to look up as passages in the bible or the koran. Also unsurprisingly, many basic ideas betrayed the common roots with xianity. The judeo-islamo-christian god already denounced theft from fellow jews, but directed his followers to pillage the spoils of their war conquests. Consistently, mohammed calls for those who steal from fellow muslims to have their hands cut off, but does not have the same compunctions about stealing from non-muslims. In fact, the bible approves of pretty much all of the ills you attribute to mohammed. To be consistent, you would have to be pretty sure that David was also in hell, but you can't say that as a christian because it goes against the bible's portrayal of David as god's golden boy. And, by the way, since when does slave trading land anyone in hell? Slavery is not only condoned in the Old Testament, but also in your own favored New Testament. Since these activities are A-OK with the judeo-islamo-christian god, again I ask: IF the christian hell or the muslim hell exists, which version of god should I try to appease, given that following christ will land me in moslem hell IF it exists? I would consider David to be a far more enlightened and just man than Mohammed. And he lived about 1700 years before Mohammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Using your definition of omnipotence, the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. God can NOT lie, God can NOT turn into Satan, etc. Oh, so Jesus was lying then when he said that God can do all things! So that I think further demonstrates that the Bible is inconsistent and incoherent on this matter, and thus demonstrates further evidence that the Bible was written by human beings and not inspired by an all perfect divine creator. How would you define ' all perfect creator' ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prestissimo Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I am aware of Karen Armstrong and Walsch's work. They are currently not on my reading list. oh. So any plans to add it in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirelien Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Using your definition of omnipotence, the God of the Bible is not omnipotent. God can NOT lie, God can NOT turn into Satan, etc. Oh, so Jesus was lying then when he said that God can do all things! So that I think further demonstrates that the Bible is inconsistent and incoherent on this matter, and thus demonstrates further evidence that the Bible was written by human beings and not inspired by an all perfect divine creator. How would you define ' all perfect creator' ?? Are you serious? Or are you just stupid? You're a Christian! You know damn well what I mean by the term 'all perfect creator.' If you really need me to spell it out for you: The creator bit means...erm... that God is the creator of the universe, as claimed by the Bible. The 'all perfect' bit means that God is good, and without any moral flaws. The Bible clearly claims this - one example is Mark 10:18, where Jesus says that no-one is good except God alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Let me get this straight: unbelievers are a threat that will ruin eternity (and therefore must be vanished to the inferno so that they can be separated from the sheep) not because they they raped, pillaged, and murdered, but because, they did not believe fantastical stories in life! You nailed it. The worst thing you can do in the eyes of Christianity is to not be Christian. Every other kind of crime can be forgiven but not joining the religion is ultimate threat. And God himself can't protect heaven from unbelievers! That is why they can't be there. It's not like when the unbeliever gets there and sees God that they will continue to not believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The situation is like this. The "benevolent" person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in his house. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? You know what else? There is no phone call, only a primative text laden with errors and contradictions, and unlike the father of your analogy, this father is someone that other children has never seen and has no evidence for: The situation is like this. A "benevolent" person has a son that he raises in his house. The benevolent person's son disobeys and rebels against his father, so he traps the son in another house. Then, he secretly inseminates a whole bunch of other women, and the offspring of these unions have no reason to know anything about their bio-dad. He phones his other children long distance that the (the father) sends his other children creepy, insane sounding notes that he is their father and that he has booby trapped his (his first son's) house and it is about to blow up in 3 hours. But the some of the other children do not believe it.They think their father is crazy. The father construes his children not believing him as "disobedience," so he has the other children abducted and thrown in the house with the first. Well after 3 hours, the house blows up. His children are gone forever. Was the father a benevolent person? There. As I said, the "buts" and qualifications have become rather tedious, but I have now incorporated your latest feedback along with a couple of other refinements and corrections and it should have shaped up to reflect eveything we've established. What are we talking about here??? So you followed it the first two posts, but now it doesn't make sense to you? I think it was a clear analogy that was not lost on people in general. Just as well, because that was my last edit. I will translate for you, the allegory is direct and straightforward, and it is yours, not mine, I only corrected it. The situation is like this. Benevolent God has a son, Satan, who lives with him in heaven. Satan disobeys and rebels against God, so God sends him to hell. Then he creates a bunch of humans, who have no evidence or reason to suspect that there even is a god. He sends these humans a creepy, insane sounding book, (laden with errors and contradictions, I might add) by channeling writers from a primitive culture, saying that their lives are booby trapped and they will be sucked down with Satan for an eternity of agony in a pit of fire. But some humans do not believe it. They think the God meme is crazy. God construes these humans not believing him as "disobedience" and figuratively leaves them to Satan in their unbelief. Well, after 70 or so years, they die. The humans are gone, suffering in hellfire forever. Was God a benevolent god? Jay, this is what you believe, and yet you still maintain that this christian god of yours is benevolent. This is a delusional belief system. I'm sorry to say that you are so taken in by this myth that laying this out as clearly plainly to you as I and others have, there is still little hope that you will break out of your self deception, and I feel bad about the mental gymnastics you must put yourself through to maintain it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I would consider David to be a far more enlightened and just man than Mohammed. And he lived about 1700 years before Mohammed. Why? mohammed has a better resume than david, just ask any of his followers. Ask followers of neither, and they're likely to be impressed with neither. What does living 1700 years earlier have to do with anything? Am I to conclude that Franz Mesmer was more enlightened than you because he lived more than 200 years before you did? Was Nero more just than you? He lived 2000 years before you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I am aware of Karen Armstrong and Walsch's work. They are currently not on my reading list. oh. So any plans to add it in the future? Not quite. I do not consider Karen Armstrong to be a serious scholar. Anyhow currently I am reading Martin Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to Galatians. I highly recommend it !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Not quite. I do not consider Karen Armstrong to be a serious scholar. You mean the former nun and graduate from Oxford? You're absolutely right. She doesn't know anything about studying the Bible after years of fulltime studying the Bible... The only "serious" scholars are those who has PhD in JayL approved bullshit. If they don't agree with JayL, they're not "serious". What about Hector Avalos, is he serious enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prestissimo Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Not quite. I do not consider Karen Armstrong to be a serious scholar. You mean the former nun and graduate from Oxford? You're absolutely right. She doesn't know anything about studying the Bible after years of fulltime studying the Bible... The only "serious" scholars are those who has PhD in JayL approved bullshit. If they don't agree with JayL, they're not "serious". What about Hector Avalos, is he serious enough for you? LOL. I can't take you serious JayL. To add to Ouroboros: *In 1999 Armstrong received the Muslim Public Affairs Council's Media Award. *Armstrong was honoured by the New York Open Center in 2004 for her "profound understanding of religious traditions and their relation to the divine." if that isn't enough for you: *She received an honorary degree as Doctor of Letters by Aston University in 2006 *In May 2008 she was awarded the Freedom of Worship Award by the Roosevelt Institute, one of four medals presented each year to men and women whose achievements have demonstrated a commitment to the Four Freedoms proclaimed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 as essential to democracy: freedom of speech and of worship, freedom from want and from fear. The institute stated that Armstrong had become "a significant voice, seeking mutual understanding in times of turbulence, confrontation and violence among religious groups." It cited "her personal dedication to the ideal that peace can be found in religious understanding, for her teachings on compassion, and her appreciation for the positive sources of spirituality." *She has also received the TED Prize 2008. *Armstrong was honored Nationalencyklopedin's International Knowledge Award 2011"for her long standing work of bringing knowledge to others about the significance of religion to humankind and, in particular, for pointing out the similarities between religions. Through a series of books and award-winning lectures she reaches out as a peace-making voice at a time when world events are becoming increasingly linked to religion." *On November 30, 2011 (St. Andrew's Day) Armstong was made honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Saint Andrews. She was as nun for crying out loud, she dedicated her life for Christ. Also she is morally one of the most beautiful people on the planet. If everyone could live by her standards the world would be an amazing place to live. Paradise, if you will.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I just heard today that Karen Armstrong's book, "A History of God," is the textbook for one of the cultural anthropology classes at my college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not quite. I do not consider Karen Armstrong to be a serious scholar. You mean the former nun and graduate from Oxford? You're absolutely right. She doesn't know anything about studying the Bible after years of fulltime studying the Bible... The only "serious" scholars are those who has PhD in JayL approved bullshit. If they don't agree with JayL, they're not "serious". What about Hector Avalos, is he serious enough for you? In study of Islam, I prefer books by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is what I would consider to be a serious scholar. I was just expressing my personal opinion of Karen Armstrong. That's all. On Hector Avalos, I had to look him up on Wiki. Here is an interesting snippet. << Avalos is an internationally recognized opponent of neo-creationism and the intelligent design movement, and is frequently linked to Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist and proponent of intelligent design who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007. Avalos co-authored a statement against intelligent design in 2005, which was eventually signed by over 130 faculty members at Iowa State University. That faculty statement became a model for other statements at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa.[citation needed] Gonzalez and Avalos are both featured in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008). Avalos is an atheist activist and advocate of secular humanist ethics. >> First thing you note is that Guillemo Gonzalez is a professional scientist with published work behind him. Avalos, on the other hand, is no scientist. Yet he seems to go toe to toe on this scientific educational issue. Personally, I'd give more credibility to Gonzalez. Avalos doesn't sound too impressive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 She was as nun for crying out loud, she dedicated her life for Christ. Also she is morally one of the most beautiful people on the planet. If everyone could live by her standards the world would be an amazing place to live. Paradise, if you will.. I admit she is a bewitching personality.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts