Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mini Book Review: A History of God
Magwang
Veteran
I just finished "A History of God - the 4,000 year old quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Karen Armstrong (Ballatine Books). Despite the endless references to scripture (Armstrong, a former nun, really did her homework), it is a facinating reconstruction of how the big 3 monotheistic religions evolved the idea of God.
Interesting, isn't it? Evolved. Evolution. Not static, but a gradual change from early fearful pagan worship of a primitive deity, through to the Trinity and beyond. All these religions had to adapt their concept of God to suit changing political and social climates. And we are in a period that is swinging back to fundamentalism, which is usually associated with instability.
I knew that Islam rejects any concept or image of God as idolotrous, but now it makes more sense. God is really unknowable in the conventional sense. Ms. Armstrong suggests that taking God to literally (aka the old man in the sky), is not only inaccurate, but dangerous.
Mysticism, on the other hand, seems outdated in these fundamentalist times, but it is perhaps a very valid way to "know" God. It takes effort and personal training (ie. meditation) that many people are too lazy to undertake.
In the chapter on Atheism, something caught my attention that I had never considered before: The Holocaust. Quote: "If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless. If he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster".
Despite the dry references, I was intrigued and I think I understand the "God mentality" a bit better now. God is a subjective experience and a vital part of the human psyche. But beware those who take it literally.
Interesting, isn't it? Evolved. Evolution. Not static, but a gradual change from early fearful pagan worship of a primitive deity, through to the Trinity and beyond. All these religions had to adapt their concept of God to suit changing political and social climates. And we are in a period that is swinging back to fundamentalism, which is usually associated with instability.
I knew that Islam rejects any concept or image of God as idolotrous, but now it makes more sense. God is really unknowable in the conventional sense. Ms. Armstrong suggests that taking God to literally (aka the old man in the sky), is not only inaccurate, but dangerous.
Mysticism, on the other hand, seems outdated in these fundamentalist times, but it is perhaps a very valid way to "know" God. It takes effort and personal training (ie. meditation) that many people are too lazy to undertake.
In the chapter on Atheism, something caught my attention that I had never considered before: The Holocaust. Quote: "If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless. If he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster".
Despite the dry references, I was intrigued and I think I understand the "God mentality" a bit better now. God is a subjective experience and a vital part of the human psyche. But beware those who take it literally.
0
Comments
Your comment about mysticism brought up a question I'd like to pose to everybody: Does Buddhism have a practice of mysticism?
gassho
Mysticism in Buddhism? My own take is that Buddhist practice can provide us with tools with which to approach the mystical experience. Buddhism, in and of itself, appears to me to be supremely practical.
Mysticism: Buddhism is supremely practical, yet there is a sense of the ysterious about it - emptiness, Zen...