“Karen Armstrong was hardly the point of the whole talk” (Temaskian)
I agree – however my point about Karen’s words is really key to the whole talk. What if they are misrepresenting what Karen Armstrong is saying in her book ‘the history of God’? What if they are taking something they read and making it say what they think she is saying? Are you willing to accept that if it is true?
I mean I may be making a mountain out of what you would consider a molehill – but if there is misrepresentation on one level – what makes anyone think there isn’t more? This really is a key issue. Now I don’t know what Karen meant by her saying ‘God is not a being’ but I am pretty sure she believes in God (thus her continual writings on the subject). Which makes me think there is some ’spin’ happening in this process.
And that is what I am pointing out – one lump in the dough can ruin the whole thing (it may not but it can). I think many of things they think about the sociology of some de-converts or Christian atheists is right on the money – but some of it’s carried too far in conclusions. I am just keeping them honest if anything.
“I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original Hebrew words and by attempting to reason with you” (Temaskian)
I am not sore about this – good on you. I backed up my interpretation by going to Jewish sources and for some reason you see them as biased…oh well…even did everything linguistically I could to show you the form of the sentence is on Monotheism – but to no avail…oh well.
I am pointing out what I will call ‘false weighting’. It’s okay for atheists to make some of the mistakes you claim I am making but not okay for me. I think that needs to be re-examined if that is the case…maybe it is – maybe it isn’t?
“I don’t think Dan has misinterpreted what Karen said” (Temaskian)
Well what you think and what actually is being said by Karen are 2 different things. So I took the liberty to at least look this stuff up – and I have to buy that book and read it to prove my point – I am more than game (something we can both do – as friends).
Some of the concepts of God (the being) Karen found in literature:
“The Rabbis: “God is the place of the world, but the world is not his place.” The Rabbis stress on the one hand the Shekinah–the presence of God in distinct places in the world–and on the other the ultimate mystery of God. To create an official doctrine of God is a sin because it limits the essential mystery of God”
“God had, as it were, adapted himself to each person ‘according to the comprehension of each.’ As one Rabbi put it, ‘God does not come to man oppressively but commensurately with a man’s power of receiving him.’…”
“Aristotle had said that God was “the unmoved mover,” Necessary Being. In Exodus, God defines himself to Moses with: “I am What I Am.” Aquinas fuses these two definitions and calls God Qui est: “He Who Is.” God is not any particular form or kind of being, but rather Being Itself: esse seipsum” (the actual passage in question)
From the site: http://www.necessaryprose.com/armstrong.htm
*You will be happy to note Karen does support your theory of various identities of God during the early writings of Judaism (from El to YHWH). Just thought I’d note these things.
***Comment taken from Temaskians blog ‘A Conspiracy Without a Mastermind’