Well. We're scheduled for this Thursday. Same bat-time (that being 7:30), but what bat-place? The Sports Bar may be a bit loud. Does anybody have a burning preference for one locale over another? I live over in Falls Church, so I am less familiar with the Crystal City area. My first impulse might be the California Pizza Kitchen there across from the mall, for no real reason.
Any other suggestions?
Also, if you're planning on coming, drop a comment here. Might be nice to get some idea.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A History of God
So I started in on " A History of God" and I have to say that I am having alot of fun reading it. She is an outstnaind writer, it flow nice and it packed with potent material. A couple of thing I thought could kick start the discussion that Armstong has mentioned thus far:
1.) The way Armstong talks about the "conflict", "evolution" and "history" of the interplay between el, elohim, pagain gods, etc. and the role of prophets reminds me of other prophets like Muhammed, Buddha and possibly even more contempoarary leaders like Gandhi, King, etc. These prophets ended up being revolutionary in in the change they introduced but the pace of numerous of these changes suprises me.
We think of God as unchanging and sending his commandments down to earth where they become law. But Armstrong shows how "God's" word actually enters a marketplace of ideas and has to comepte for alligiance, possibly something to consider about the pace and intesity/character of what God sends down.
2.) I really enjoyed the change of God's law from focusing on a chosen people to focusing on humanity at large but we have yet to see God perceived as a paternal figure. It suprises me that such strong notions as "chosen people" and "chosen nations" have been revived in the present century given the changes we see in God's demeanor from people to laws and especially victims so long ago. I am really intersted to see when God the Father becomes a common perception.
1.) The way Armstong talks about the "conflict", "evolution" and "history" of the interplay between el, elohim, pagain gods, etc. and the role of prophets reminds me of other prophets like Muhammed, Buddha and possibly even more contempoarary leaders like Gandhi, King, etc. These prophets ended up being revolutionary in in the change they introduced but the pace of numerous of these changes suprises me.
We think of God as unchanging and sending his commandments down to earth where they become law. But Armstrong shows how "God's" word actually enters a marketplace of ideas and has to comepte for alligiance, possibly something to consider about the pace and intesity/character of what God sends down.
2.) I really enjoyed the change of God's law from focusing on a chosen people to focusing on humanity at large but we have yet to see God perceived as a paternal figure. It suprises me that such strong notions as "chosen people" and "chosen nations" have been revived in the present century given the changes we see in God's demeanor from people to laws and especially victims so long ago. I am really intersted to see when God the Father becomes a common perception.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Monotheism/Polytheism
I promise I will do a post on the first reading this weekend but for now, I have a question I can't fully understand so I was hoping I might have some of your help in getting to the bottom of as it is an extremely fundamental question that in the end might be nothing more than semantics.
So Christianity laregly claims itself as monothesitic, some say that the bible verse "gods and angels there are many but there is only one God" (I would cite my source right here but my bible is across the room and I am in bed, a moral dilemma if there ever was one but I think the passage is found in Romans) is a warning against all the false gods and angels and an affirmation that there is only one God. Others say this scripture points out that there is only one God who is omnipotent but other gods who are not omnipotent, so the title and beleif in monotheism hold true. Many claim the LDS church to not be Christian because LDS members believe that they can attain godhood but not Godhood.
If I understand LDS doctrine correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, Mormons beleive that the Christ is to attain Godhood with a capital "G" while others can obtain godhood with a little "g". While the doctrine has never really been spelled out in detail, and if it has please point me in the right direction, it appears to me the LDS doctrine is extremely close to some polytheisitc religions, namely Hinduism, that believe that there is one divine being above all others (some might call this being God), but there are numerous other lesser beings, gods. The system prevalent in Hinduism is defined by the Smartha philosophy and sect; this theory allows for the veneration of numberless deities, on the understanding that all of them are but a manifestation of one divine power. In addition, many polytheistic faiths see their numerous gods as having many human attributes, some capable of right and wrong and none able to match the omnipotence of the one divine power, God. This seems somewhat comparable, there are many differences, to the LDS beleif in humanity, outside of the Christ or Messiah, to attain goodhood since all of humanity has sin and only one, himself a future God, has never commited sin.
What I have noticed is that in polytheistic relgions, at least some of them, what seperates gods from God is the degree of power they hold and this might be applicable to the LDS view of gods, goddesses and God given our beleif in the keys of the priesthood. This is not to mean that all Hindus or Buddhists would claim that the one over-encompassing power would be given the label God but I use the label for clarity here although many would dispute the label saying that the Christian or Islamic label of God does not fit.
This is jsut a very brief note on the subject but I hope it can lead to a worth while discussion. Now everbody go pray that the Broncos beat the Jaguars tomorrow.
So Christianity laregly claims itself as monothesitic, some say that the bible verse "gods and angels there are many but there is only one God" (I would cite my source right here but my bible is across the room and I am in bed, a moral dilemma if there ever was one but I think the passage is found in Romans) is a warning against all the false gods and angels and an affirmation that there is only one God. Others say this scripture points out that there is only one God who is omnipotent but other gods who are not omnipotent, so the title and beleif in monotheism hold true. Many claim the LDS church to not be Christian because LDS members believe that they can attain godhood but not Godhood.
If I understand LDS doctrine correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, Mormons beleive that the Christ is to attain Godhood with a capital "G" while others can obtain godhood with a little "g". While the doctrine has never really been spelled out in detail, and if it has please point me in the right direction, it appears to me the LDS doctrine is extremely close to some polytheisitc religions, namely Hinduism, that believe that there is one divine being above all others (some might call this being God), but there are numerous other lesser beings, gods. The system prevalent in Hinduism is defined by the Smartha philosophy and sect; this theory allows for the veneration of numberless deities, on the understanding that all of them are but a manifestation of one divine power. In addition, many polytheistic faiths see their numerous gods as having many human attributes, some capable of right and wrong and none able to match the omnipotence of the one divine power, God. This seems somewhat comparable, there are many differences, to the LDS beleif in humanity, outside of the Christ or Messiah, to attain goodhood since all of humanity has sin and only one, himself a future God, has never commited sin.
What I have noticed is that in polytheistic relgions, at least some of them, what seperates gods from God is the degree of power they hold and this might be applicable to the LDS view of gods, goddesses and God given our beleif in the keys of the priesthood. This is not to mean that all Hindus or Buddhists would claim that the one over-encompassing power would be given the label God but I use the label for clarity here although many would dispute the label saying that the Christian or Islamic label of God does not fit.
This is jsut a very brief note on the subject but I hope it can lead to a worth while discussion. Now everbody go pray that the Broncos beat the Jaguars tomorrow.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Looking ahead, already
Welcome to the new folks.
I went on a bit about Julian of Norwich, medieval English visionary, and her showings last Thursday. I mentioned that they might be available online. It is, here, in irritating frames or downloadable as a PDF. This particular translation (Julian wrote in Middle English; not quite Chaucer, but "Off the which, the first is of His prettious coroning with thornys; and therewith was comprehended and specifyied the Trinitie with Incarnation") is pretty close to the original, and can thus be slow going; Penguin, happily, has recently put out one that reads a bit more cleanly and is available on Amazon for $4.50.
I'd recommend we all go with the same version, for ease of discussion; any preferences?
There are two versions of the "Showings;" the first, written soon after the sixteen visions of God, Christ, and the Crucifixion she had when she was thirty years old, is generally called the Short Text. She had prayed to God, requesting to understand the meaning and, more, the very experience of the Atonement; these visions came in response.
The second, the Long Text (ie, about 200 pages), is an expansion of the Short Text, produced at the end of Julian's life. She became a nun after the first vision, and after thirty-odd years of meditation and further visions clarifying the meanings of what she initially encountered, she wrote the Long Text.
Here's a good brief introduction to Julian.
I went on a bit about Julian of Norwich, medieval English visionary, and her showings last Thursday. I mentioned that they might be available online. It is, here, in irritating frames or downloadable as a PDF. This particular translation (Julian wrote in Middle English; not quite Chaucer, but "Off the which, the first is of His prettious coroning with thornys; and therewith was comprehended and specifyied the Trinitie with Incarnation") is pretty close to the original, and can thus be slow going; Penguin, happily, has recently put out one that reads a bit more cleanly and is available on Amazon for $4.50.
I'd recommend we all go with the same version, for ease of discussion; any preferences?
There are two versions of the "Showings;" the first, written soon after the sixteen visions of God, Christ, and the Crucifixion she had when she was thirty years old, is generally called the Short Text. She had prayed to God, requesting to understand the meaning and, more, the very experience of the Atonement; these visions came in response.
The second, the Long Text (ie, about 200 pages), is an expansion of the Short Text, produced at the end of Julian's life. She became a nun after the first vision, and after thirty-odd years of meditation and further visions clarifying the meanings of what she initially encountered, she wrote the Long Text.
Here's a good brief introduction to Julian.
Religious Freedom, Etc.
There’s a lot to respond to in the comments from the last post, so I took the liberty of making this a separate post. You can read about theodemocracy at http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/theodemocracy/
As for the “marketplace” notion that I introduced, it seems like what you’re asking is how far and to which spheres of life it should be extended. I am personally open to pragmatic considerations. I am not entirely opposed to substance regulation on principle, but I can sympathize with concerns about an overcrowded prison system filled with people who’ve committed non-violent drug offenses. A basic free market system is great, but I can understand how national security concerns of various types might override it (selling sensitive military equipment to a hostile nation and so forth). I’m not entirely certain just how to sort it out, and the (nearly always moderate) public consensus does tend to shift over time.
On the particular issue of religion, I think there should be a “marketplace” in the sense that the state should not have an institutionalized preference for one religion over another (i.e. a state church). But if it so happens that a specific religious viewpoint comes to predominate (or even just gain a significant following), I don’t think there should be an active attempt to reduce its influence in the name of maintaining a secular culture. This would implicitly say that secularism is fact the state religion, and as I said before, I’m against a state religion.
There is a tough issue here, though, with respect to the scope of free exercise of religion. In the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990, a member of a Native American Church attempted to argue that his being fired on account of peyote use, a practice of his religion, was a violation of his religious liberty. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, Justice Scalia arguing, “to make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”
Let me quote him at another part at length:
But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a state would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of "statues that are to be used [p878] for worship purposes," or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.
Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.
So I think the critical question for a veil ban (at least as it relates to US jurisprudence) is, would it be directed at the religious practice itself or is there (or could there be) a law against covering one’s face for other reasons? If we do not find just cause in fining people for wearing, say, Halloween masks, I can’t think of a good reason to apply it to burkas, except as a restriction on religious exercise. You might be able to argue it under the rubric of women’s rights, but it seems disputable enough that prudence would come down on the side against a ban.
It is interesting to note that religion has languished the most in the countries of Europe that have established churches. One could argue that it is precisely the fact that religion is freely chosen in the US that has given it its vitality here. As for whether humanity can make the right choices, I think that’s a question that exists whether the humans in charge of the state or the ones acting in the “marketplace” are choosing. The real question is which context is preferable, and there’s good reason to think it’s the latter.
Other people may be more knowledgeable on this than I, but I don’t think religion plays a terribly big role in the neoconservative movement. The religious right and neoconservative foreign policy experts have both played a role in the contemporary conservative political coalition, but they’re generally coming from different places with different concerns. If anything, neoconservatism has played a bigger role in the religious movements than the other way around. Reshaping the Middle East has been an occasion to muse about the fulfillment of end-times prophecies. If there is a connection in the opposition direction, it lies in the Straussian respect for religion that most neocons adhere to ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/34900.html ).
As for the “marketplace” notion that I introduced, it seems like what you’re asking is how far and to which spheres of life it should be extended. I am personally open to pragmatic considerations. I am not entirely opposed to substance regulation on principle, but I can sympathize with concerns about an overcrowded prison system filled with people who’ve committed non-violent drug offenses. A basic free market system is great, but I can understand how national security concerns of various types might override it (selling sensitive military equipment to a hostile nation and so forth). I’m not entirely certain just how to sort it out, and the (nearly always moderate) public consensus does tend to shift over time.
On the particular issue of religion, I think there should be a “marketplace” in the sense that the state should not have an institutionalized preference for one religion over another (i.e. a state church). But if it so happens that a specific religious viewpoint comes to predominate (or even just gain a significant following), I don’t think there should be an active attempt to reduce its influence in the name of maintaining a secular culture. This would implicitly say that secularism is fact the state religion, and as I said before, I’m against a state religion.
There is a tough issue here, though, with respect to the scope of free exercise of religion. In the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990, a member of a Native American Church attempted to argue that his being fired on account of peyote use, a practice of his religion, was a violation of his religious liberty. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, Justice Scalia arguing, “to make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”
Let me quote him at another part at length:
But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a state would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of "statues that are to be used [p878] for worship purposes," or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.
Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.
So I think the critical question for a veil ban (at least as it relates to US jurisprudence) is, would it be directed at the religious practice itself or is there (or could there be) a law against covering one’s face for other reasons? If we do not find just cause in fining people for wearing, say, Halloween masks, I can’t think of a good reason to apply it to burkas, except as a restriction on religious exercise. You might be able to argue it under the rubric of women’s rights, but it seems disputable enough that prudence would come down on the side against a ban.
It is interesting to note that religion has languished the most in the countries of Europe that have established churches. One could argue that it is precisely the fact that religion is freely chosen in the US that has given it its vitality here. As for whether humanity can make the right choices, I think that’s a question that exists whether the humans in charge of the state or the ones acting in the “marketplace” are choosing. The real question is which context is preferable, and there’s good reason to think it’s the latter.
Other people may be more knowledgeable on this than I, but I don’t think religion plays a terribly big role in the neoconservative movement. The religious right and neoconservative foreign policy experts have both played a role in the contemporary conservative political coalition, but they’re generally coming from different places with different concerns. If anything, neoconservatism has played a bigger role in the religious movements than the other way around. Reshaping the Middle East has been an occasion to muse about the fulfillment of end-times prophecies. If there is a connection in the opposition direction, it lies in the Straussian respect for religion that most neocons adhere to ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/34900.html ).
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Economist
Not sure if anyone gets the Economist, but in this months issue there is a quick little article talking about the ability of Muslims to assimilate and openly practice their faith in both the U.S. and Europe. This has long been the discusion to have, and rightly so, since 9-11.
Generally speaking, Europe has strict wall between church and state (i.e. the banning of veils, relgious symbols, etc. in public buidlings) while the U.S. is much more "tolerant" in terms of the letter of the law.
Given the troubles of the LDS church with U.S. law and society in the past, this is an intersting concept that some might be interested in. Muslims generally feel alot "freer" inthe U.S. than in Europe. If anyone is interested in looking at the way Europe and the U.S. treat religion differently in the eyes of the law, which has its inevitable effect on societal views in general, let me knwo and I will find some further resources for you.
It is worthy of note that for every country that mandates the wearing of the veil for women, there are two countries that ban the wearing of the veil in public places. Just something to think about when we talk about freedom to worship, how far we should take it (since if LDS members want to fully rpactice their faith which has not always been popular, should we grant the same privelage to all or if the LDS church is the true church, if we get the opportunity, shoudl LDS members push for special legal privelages to fall upon the LDS church and no one else?) Just something to think about. I am always alot better at asking questions than answering them.
Generally speaking, Europe has strict wall between church and state (i.e. the banning of veils, relgious symbols, etc. in public buidlings) while the U.S. is much more "tolerant" in terms of the letter of the law.
Given the troubles of the LDS church with U.S. law and society in the past, this is an intersting concept that some might be interested in. Muslims generally feel alot "freer" inthe U.S. than in Europe. If anyone is interested in looking at the way Europe and the U.S. treat religion differently in the eyes of the law, which has its inevitable effect on societal views in general, let me knwo and I will find some further resources for you.
It is worthy of note that for every country that mandates the wearing of the veil for women, there are two countries that ban the wearing of the veil in public places. Just something to think about when we talk about freedom to worship, how far we should take it (since if LDS members want to fully rpactice their faith which has not always been popular, should we grant the same privelage to all or if the LDS church is the true church, if we get the opportunity, shoudl LDS members push for special legal privelages to fall upon the LDS church and no one else?) Just something to think about. I am always alot better at asking questions than answering them.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
some (possibly) relevant thoughts on the History of God
Karen Armstrong used to be a nun; now she's made a transition increasingly popular in the modern world: she's "spiritual, but not religious." There's something to this, but it strikes me as possible but certainly not the inevitable or necessary dichotomy that it's often held up to be.
This book is a popular and fairly worthwhile introduction to the three monotheistic faiths, though it's useful to remember that it's written from the above perspective; that is, Armstrong is more attracted to the mystical and subjective in religion than she is in the doctrinal and concrete. She tends to sneer a bit at the latter and celebrate the former. In addition, though I, unfortunately, am not as well informed in the history of Judaism or Islam as I could be, I do have a number of quibbles with her interpretation of the origins and history of Christianity. We'll get to those.
Anyhow, this sort of overview is useful particularly for Mormons, I think, because there are some issues with the very concept of traditional monotheism that we either take so for granted that we don't recognize how extraordinary they are, or don't really grasp in the first place. Among these are:
1)Monotheism implies universalism; that is, there's one God for everybody. This is fairly radical, if you think about it, especially if you're an eighth century BC Canaanite who isn't convinced that the Persians are actually human beings.
2)The nature of God. Mormons, with our tangible and literally paternal God, often don't quite realize how much of an 'other' God is in the other monotheistic faiths. The impassibility and abstraction of God from his creation elevates the importance of Christ; as Aquinas argues, Christ is necessary for God to actually interact with human beings because he (to use a convenient but not accurate term) bridges the gap between us and the absolute divine. God is personal, to these faiths - that is, he has a personal identity and self awareness, but he is not a person, as we are. He does not experience the universe in the same ways we do. The Eastern Orthodox mystic Gregory of Nyssa said that we must realize that it is as true to say that "God is not" as it is to say "God is," because the concept of 'is' is insufficient to truly describe the nature of God.
In addition to these facts, the book itself raises some issues that John brought up, which are worth thinking about. If we are believers (as Armstrong no longer is), what does it mean to think about monotheism having a history in the way historians use the term - that is, developing and changing over time, driven by human situation and social change? Certainly Armstrong's history of God does not reflect the sacred history of "true" religion that we interpret the Bible to contain. How can we deal with this and remain true both to reason and to faith?
This book is a popular and fairly worthwhile introduction to the three monotheistic faiths, though it's useful to remember that it's written from the above perspective; that is, Armstrong is more attracted to the mystical and subjective in religion than she is in the doctrinal and concrete. She tends to sneer a bit at the latter and celebrate the former. In addition, though I, unfortunately, am not as well informed in the history of Judaism or Islam as I could be, I do have a number of quibbles with her interpretation of the origins and history of Christianity. We'll get to those.
Anyhow, this sort of overview is useful particularly for Mormons, I think, because there are some issues with the very concept of traditional monotheism that we either take so for granted that we don't recognize how extraordinary they are, or don't really grasp in the first place. Among these are:
1)Monotheism implies universalism; that is, there's one God for everybody. This is fairly radical, if you think about it, especially if you're an eighth century BC Canaanite who isn't convinced that the Persians are actually human beings.
2)The nature of God. Mormons, with our tangible and literally paternal God, often don't quite realize how much of an 'other' God is in the other monotheistic faiths. The impassibility and abstraction of God from his creation elevates the importance of Christ; as Aquinas argues, Christ is necessary for God to actually interact with human beings because he (to use a convenient but not accurate term) bridges the gap between us and the absolute divine. God is personal, to these faiths - that is, he has a personal identity and self awareness, but he is not a person, as we are. He does not experience the universe in the same ways we do. The Eastern Orthodox mystic Gregory of Nyssa said that we must realize that it is as true to say that "God is not" as it is to say "God is," because the concept of 'is' is insufficient to truly describe the nature of God.
In addition to these facts, the book itself raises some issues that John brought up, which are worth thinking about. If we are believers (as Armstrong no longer is), what does it mean to think about monotheism having a history in the way historians use the term - that is, developing and changing over time, driven by human situation and social change? Certainly Armstrong's history of God does not reflect the sacred history of "true" religion that we interpret the Bible to contain. How can we deal with this and remain true both to reason and to faith?
A Few Notes on Posting to the Blog
You'll notice to the right a list of contributors to this blog. Please add a couple of details about yourself to you your profile (i.e., why you wanted to join this group) so we can get to know each other a little.
When you create a new post, attach labels with the name of the book and the topic of your post. If the post is about administrative details, us the label "admin."
Also, don't be alarmed when you start getting e-mails from the group "Holy Joes" -- it's our group e-mail address that will alert you each time something new is posted to the blog.
When you create a new post, attach labels with the name of the book and the topic of your post. If the post is about administrative details, us the label "admin."
Also, don't be alarmed when you start getting e-mails from the group "Holy Joes" -- it's our group e-mail address that will alert you each time something new is posted to the blog.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Thanks to Allison
Thanks to Allison for creating this blog and I think this can be a big success. Let's all really start using it and get others to join in. One thing, the purpose of this entire project is to discover new insights into our own personal spirituality in relation to the spirituality of others who practice numerous different religions. So epecially with the blog, lets present arguments, pose questions and be constructive as opposed to the all to often practice of mud slinging and close mindedness.
With that, let the discussion begin! Post early and post often.
With that, let the discussion begin! Post early and post often.
First Meeting Notes
Hi everyone, and welcome to the new blog! Thanks to Mike and Matt for starting up this group.
At our first meeting, we decided to read one book every three weeks and meet to discuss it. Our first book will be A History of God by Karen Armstrong, and we'll meet on October 4 (time and place TBD). In the meantime, this blog is a forum sharing ideas about the book, links to relevant articles or reviews, etc. Feel free to start posting anytime as you begin reading.
For reference, here is a list of the next few books we decided to read, followed by a list of the other possible books suggested. If you have other suggestions, comment on this post and we will keep a running list.
At our first meeting, we decided to read one book every three weeks and meet to discuss it. Our first book will be A History of God by Karen Armstrong, and we'll meet on October 4 (time and place TBD). In the meantime, this blog is a forum sharing ideas about the book, links to relevant articles or reviews, etc. Feel free to start posting anytime as you begin reading.
For reference, here is a list of the next few books we decided to read, followed by a list of the other possible books suggested. If you have other suggestions, comment on this post and we will keep a running list.
- October 4: A History of God, by Karen Armstrong
- Late Oct: God: A Biography, by Jack Miles
- Nov: The Kingdom of God is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy and The Showings, by Julian of Norwich
- Dec: Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time, by Karen Armstrong and Buddha, by Karen Armstrong
- The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in a Time of Trial, by Robert Bellah
- The Culture of Disbelief, by Stephen Carter
- Salvation on Sand Mountain: Snake Handling and Redemption in Southern Appalachia, by Dennis Covington
- Walking the Bible, by Bruce Feiler
- Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths, by Bruce Feiler
- Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God, by Jack Miles
- The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark Noll
- The Sacred and the Profane, by Mircea Eliade
- Seven Story Mountain, by Thomas Merton
- Confessions, by St. Augustine
- Possibly some pieces by Ghandi
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)