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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mike - Your number 2 is interesting, I think; the problem of God as Father is important, and it's primarily a Christian conceit, I'd believe. Has to do with the conventional trinity, if I were to guess.
Your 1 is also important, and raises an issue as old as Kant: what is the relationship between the medium and the message?
Post a Comment