Karen Armstrong's Video

[Truthseeker]

This video ties tied together all religions, while at the same time emphasized that all religions advocated not just inner peace for ourselves, but faith in action and deed. This would be a good strategy for interfaith dialogue with people of other religions. I bookmarked the talk for later reference. You might do the same thing.

I have heard of Karen Armstrong before. I heard she wrote a sympathetic biography of Muhammad, and more recently I heard she wrote A History of God, which traces religious history from the time of Abraham to the present. I just looked up all the books she wrote, and the number is staggering. Look up the books she wrote yourself. Maybe you'll want to buy one. I intend at some point buy the book on Muhammad and the book on the Buddha.

 

[icehorse]

i read her bio of Muhammad, and I know only a little of her other works by reputation.

I suspect she's well intended, but as I'm an anti-theist, I'm leery of even well intended apologists.

 

[sun rise]

I've read some of what she's written and found her books to be both easy to read and enlightening. I found a very good interview of her in the New Humanist which I read because of @icehorse 's post. The Golden Rule of Compassion: Laurie Taylor interviews Karen Armstrong This excerpt is very far from being an apologetic:

"We love telling stories. We are story people. We encapsulate difficult truths in stories. But these are myths. They are not meant to be historical truths. Look, in the New Testament you have five mutually exclusive accounts of the resurrection. In the Hebrew scriptures there are several different creation stories. These are stories telling you what you must do. When the Greeks told their stories about heroes fighting monsters or threading their way through labyrinths, they were saying that what you have to do is bring out the heroic potential in yourself and only then will you discover the truth of this myth. Myths tell you something important about human nature. Doctrines are something else. Doctrines are a peculiar disease of western Christianity. One of the reasons for the split between the eastern and the western churches was because the Greeks thought the westerners far too anthropomorphic and rationalistic in their notion of the divine. Take the notion of the Trinity. This was designed to remind Christians that they couldn't simply think about God as a personality. It was more complex than that. And then Christians turned this into a dove-like being floating around an old man holding a crucifix and that is the Trinity. We have created an idol out of these really absurd doctrines. Religions are doing a fabulous job putting themselves out of business."

 

[icehorse]

This excerpt is very far from being an apologetic:

Well, we don't have the context for the quote you provided. That said, I think this article makes her apologetic status pretty clear:

Karen Armstrong - Wikipedia

 

[danieldemol]

This video ties tied together all religions, while at the same time emphasized that all religions advocated not just inner peace for ourselves, but faith in action and deed. This would be a good strategy for interfaith dialogue with people of other religions. I bookmarked the talk for later reference. You might do the same thing.

I have heard of Karen Armstrong before. I heard she wrote a sympathetic biography of Muhammad, and more recently I heard she wrote A History of God, which traces religious history from the time of Abraham to the present. I just looked up all the books she wrote, and the number is staggering. Look up the books she wrote yourself. Maybe you'll want to buy one. I intend at some point buy the book on Muhammad and the book on the Buddha.

How does one write an objective biography of Muhammad considering we have no secular historical sources, only a set of conflicting hagiographies?

Yes I note you said "sympathetic biography" and not "objective biography", but of what use is yet another hagiography to the seeker of truth?

In my opinion.

 

[sun rise]

How does one write an objective biography of Muhammad considering we have no secular historical sources, only a set of conflicting hagiographies?

Yes I note you said "sympathetic biography" and not "objective biography", but of what use is yet another hagiography to the seeker of truth?

In my opinion.

Why would a secular source be objective? We have any number of modern examples of biased secular sources to events. The "joke" history is written by the victors has truth because objectivity can be a goal but not one perfectly practiced.

But really, the OP was not about a biography but a statement mentioning several religions by an author who has written well over 25 books and who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for her work.

 

[Truthseeker]

This is an interfaith discussion, not a debate. Or should be. I am reporting people. This is exactly what I was afraid of happening when moved essentially the same thing from Baha'i dir.

 

[Truthseeker]

How does one write an objective biography of Muhammad considering we have no secular historical sources, only a set of conflicting hagiographies?

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment. Perhaps she reported the conflicting sources. I don't know.

I heard someone say once she was too sympathetic to Muhammad. That's my only source of saying it was sympathetic originally. It wasn't polemic would be more accurate, as in a Christian trying to show how bad Muhammad was. Quoted from Wikipedia:

Juan Eduardo Campo, author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars who currently conveyed a "more or less objective", as opposed to polemical, view of Islam and its origins to a wide public.

I am trying not to debate myself.

 

[Truthseeker]

Well, we don't have the context for the quote you provided. That said, I think this article makes her apologetic status pretty clear:

Karen Armstrong - Wikipedia

You are debating more than danieldemol. This thread is intended to help produce more interfaith harmony, not for someone outside of a faith tradition to attack faith itself.

 

[Truthseeker]

I've read some of what she's written and found her books to be both easy to read and enlightening. I found a very good interview of her in the New Humanist which I read because of @icehorse 's post. The Golden Rule of Compassion: Laurie Taylor interviews Karen Armstrong This excerpt is very far from being an apologetic:

"We love telling stories. We are story people. We encapsulate difficult truths in stories. But these are myths. They are not meant to be historical truths. Look, in the New Testament you have five mutually exclusive accounts of the resurrection. In the Hebrew scriptures there are several different creation stories. These are stories telling you what you must do. When the Greeks told their stories about heroes fighting monsters or threading their way through labyrinths, they were saying that what you have to do is bring out the heroic potential in yourself and only then will you discover the truth of this myth. Myths tell you something important about human nature. Doctrines are something else. Doctrines are a peculiar disease of western Christianity. One of the reasons for the split between the eastern and the western churches was because the Greeks thought the westerners far too anthropomorphic and rationalistic in their notion of the divine. Take the notion of the Trinity. This was designed to remind Christians that they couldn't simply think about God as a personality. It was more complex than that. And then Christians turned this into a dove-like being floating around an old man holding a crucifix and that is the Trinity. We have created an idol out of these really absurd doctrines. Religions are doing a fabulous job putting themselves out of business."

You are debating somewhat, but I don't blame you. It is an understandable defense against someone who started a debate..

 

[Native]

This video ties tied together all religions, while at the same time emphasized that all religions advocated not just inner peace for ourselves, but faith in action and deed. This would be a good strategy for interfaith dialogue with people of other religions. I bookmarked the talk for later reference. You might do the same thing.

Thanks for this excellent video and for Karen Armstrongs wise references and words.

 

[icehorse]

You are debating more than danieldemol. This thread is intended to help produce more interfaith harmony, not for someone outside of a faith tradition to attack faith itself.

With all sincerity, all I've said is that Armstrong is an apologist. It seemed that @sun rise wanted me to provide a citation, which I did. I honestly feel that establishing her as an apologist is not at all confrontational. But perhaps I'm wrong? I promise, my intention is to honor your non-debate request.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thanks for this excellent video and for Karen Armstrongs wise references and words.

You're welcome!

 

[Truthseeker]

With all sincerity, all I've said is that Armstrong is an apologist. It seemed that @sun rise wanted me to provide a citation, which I did. I honestly feel that establishing her as an apologist is not at all confrontational. But perhaps I'm wrong? I promise, my intention is to honor your non-debate request.

Sorry, I over-reacted. sun rise approves the post I'm responding to, and calls it friendly, so obviously no harm done. You are not upset at me which is what I would expect. You're a good guy, if you are a guy, and even if you're not a guy.

I fear I've sabotaged my own thread. Not many posts in this thread since I was here early this morning.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry, I over-reacted. sun rise approves the post I'm responding to, and calls it friendly, so obviously no harm done. You are not upset at me which is what I would expect. You're a good guy, if you are a guy, and even if you're not a guy.

I fear I've sabotaged my own thread. Not many posts in this thread since I was here early this morning.

We're good!

As perhaps an interesting sidebar, this exchange did get me to think a bit about the border between discussion and debate. I'm not sure I have a clear idea of that fine line. The forum guideline helps a bit, but it still seems a bit ambiguous.

 

[Truthseeker]

We're good!

As perhaps an interesting sidebar, this exchange did get me to think a bit about the border between discussion and debate. I'm not sure I have a clear idea of that fine line. The forum guideline helps a bit, but it still seems a bit ambiguous.

Yes, definitely. It's hard to tell, at least for me.