Why believe the Bible?

[Kane]

LPoT,

I'm curious as to your credentials because I want to know if it is that you have the place to assert the non-expertise of another while simultaneously holding no expertise in the same field. If you do have an expertise in the same field as the theologians you take as credible, then what, other than letters, divides you and those theologians from anyone else with an ability to learn (including Armstrong, which, clearly she has)?

[headheart]

LPoT,

Just as a matter of curiosity, what did you study at university, college, etc.?

LPoT,

I'm curious as to your credentials because I want to know if it is that you have the place to assert the non-expertise of another while simultaneously holding no expertise in the same field. If you do have an expertise in the same field as the theologians you take as credible, then what, other than letters, divides you and those theologians from anyone else with an ability to learn (including Armstrong, which, clearly she has)?

Kane,
Karen's videos are all over the show and anyone can watch, listen and evaluate for yourself. I'm lucky as I get to chat to my relatives who are British and Roman Catholic and it's pretty much the standard ecumenical-humanist gospel which my old buddy Calvinists would refer to as a works gospel. ;)

As far as Karen's knowledge, she's brilliant but still misses Jesus by miles. Karen Armstrong Lecture - St. John the Divine, April 27, 2010 I doubt if Crystal is anywhere near that level of scholarship, but that doesn't mean one cannot evaluate or discuss her would, but with respect of course. Not like the gang-buster routine that happened in the Plantinga new-book-thread.

Peace,
Eric

[siliconwafer]

If archaeological evidence or scientific evidence proves that the Bible is a trustworthy document, then would this mean that archaeology or science has more authority than the Bible?

[lilpixieofterror]

LPoT,

I'm curious as to your credentials because I want to know if it is that you have the place to assert the non-expertise of another while simultaneously holding no expertise in the same field. If you do have an expertise in the same field as the theologians you take as credible, then what, other than letters, divides you and those theologians from anyone else with an ability to learn (including Armstrong, which, clearly she has)?

Have I written books in the field of theology and claimed to be an expert in theology or history? Nope, but when addressing claims outside of the fields I have studied, I go and see what the experts have to say on it before hand. Sure, she has an ability to learn, the problem is that she uses many non experts in her cites too or do you deny that she often relay's upon the works of the Jesus Seminary (which only a hand full, actually have any relevant experience in the field). Perhaps you should consult other sources beyond those you happen to agree with?

[lilpixieofterror]

Never claimed that. Read the whole post. There is both logic and emotion involved in arguments on all sides. You did not specifically criticize anything in her book and relied more on generalizations.

And shuny, did I deny the role of emotions? Nope, so are you done with the strawmen?

I said nothing about the Jesus Seminar, but you have an extreme bias against this work..

Considering that many of her works rely much upon the Jesus Seminar, what they say has relevance to her work. Do you deny this shuny?

[lilpixieofterror]

LPoT,

Just as a matter of curiosity, what did you study at university, college, etc.?

Biology and physical science, but I also never claimed to be an expert on the Bible nor did I write books about the topic in which I tried to present myself as one (I have read a few of her works years ago, and found her mentioning once being a nun, as though that would make her an expert in these fields). Besides, from what I can find on Karen Armstrong's, her training is in English as well as being part of as well as being a former nun (a teaching one, but since nun's can teach on about anything, that may be rather irrelevant too). Neither of which, make her a theologian nor an expert in these topics. She isn't as bad as Richard Dawkins, but there is more detailed works than hers out there. Do you want me to name a few mistakes she made that show her research isn't as good as you think it is?

[ZackMartin]

As far as Karen's knowledge, she's brilliant but still misses Jesus by miles

Does she miss Jesus by miles? I suppose it depends on what you believe Jesus was trying to do, at the core. Can you give a brief summary of the essence of Jesus' teaching, as you see it, in a few words or sentences? My own reading of Jesus emphasises "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 10:7). One could understand Karen Armstrong as trying to build the Kingdom of Heaven, in a postmillennial manner; one could understand the whole liberal-humanist project in that way. Then again, if you see the core of Jesus' message as "God become man to die in order to pay the penalty for human sin", then yes Karen Armstrong would be miles off.

[headheart]

Does she miss Jesus by miles? I suppose it depends on what you believe Jesus was trying to do, at the core.

Yes. Do and teach.

Can you give a brief summary of the essence of Jesus' teaching, as you see it, in a few words or sentences?

No. There is too much to study including parables, sermons and of course the apostle's doctrine and the colossal body of work that appears in the New Testament.

My own reading of Jesus emphasises "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 10:7). One could understand Karen Armstrong as trying to build the Kingdom of Heaven, in a postmillennial manner; one could understand the whole liberal-humanist project in that way. Then again, if you see the core of Jesus' message as "God become man to die in order to pay the penalty for human sin", then yes Karen Armstrong would be miles off.

Sadly, she has a lot to say (perhaps too much) and ends up saying very little in the way of how one might accomplish what would come from a more in-depth study of the Christian sacred texts. It's just too thin and if one made a study of this sort, such a thing would be obvious. I'd recommend a study of the book of Romans to begin with and of course the whole New Testament. It's a lot of work, but in the end will curb the inclination of our times to reduce rather than consider the sheer magnitude of Jesus teaching. The Post Modern style of Christianity functions as a gag and in the end assumes that one is or has to dumb down what needs to be unpacked. Consider the sheer volume of commentaries etc.

Peace,
headheart

[shunyadragon]

Awe, Karen Armstrong a non expert in the fields she speaks about that really should stop pretending to be an expert on these matters.

I think another source can be found on Tweb, and it is well researched and documented here . . .

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...theistic-roots

[headheart]

I think another source can be found on Google, and it is well researched and documented here . . .

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Excellent

[headheart]

Zack,
That being said, I do not want to appear to be small-minded about this for though my thoughts about Karen's views were based on a brief listen to one of her earlier works ( The Bible The Biography ) and daresay my inbuilt scanners went on to red alert, but her more recent work ( Twelve Steps to a compassionate life ) does seem to be a very useful introduction to the good magic (for lack of a better way of saying this simply ) which has emerged from our evolved sense of morality and religion and I'd be a fool to say that her work wasn't sorely needed in England. Yet, without the spirit which inspired these noble thoughts touching our lives I cannot see how what she has in mind will be any less of a fad than what Rick Warren proposed with is Peace Plan.
She's a fine scholar and a brilliant mind and if I ever get a chance to meet her in person, I'm going to give her a great big hug.


Compassionate Seattle: Karen Armstrong's 12 Step Program

Peace or Namaste,
headheart

[shunyadragon]

If archaeological evidence or scientific evidence proves that the Bible is a trustworthy document, then would this mean that archaeology or science has more authority than the Bible?

Archaeological evidence nor scientific evidence could not 'prove' the Bible is a trustworthy document. Archaeology nor science works that way

[lilpixieofterror]

I think another source can be found on Tweb, and it is well researched and documented here . . .

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...theistic-roots

Some of those are actually a lot better. Although from what I've read, you can't take all of that stuff too seriously because when it comes to the Canaanite side, we have, at best, 3rd hand documents telling us the specifics of their religious beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

Some of those are actually a lot better. Although from what I've read, you can't take all of that stuff too seriously because when it comes to the Canaanite side, we have, at best, 3rd hand documents telling us the specifics of their religious beliefs.

in part, because we have nothing that predates it from the Hebrew side. I consider this response to vague to be an effective criticism..

[headheart]

If archaeological evidence or scientific evidence proves that the Bible is a trustworthy document, then would this mean that archaeology or science has more authority than the Bible?

I dunno, but maybe you can ask or listen to a few lectures by:

'Professor Sir Colin John Humphreys, CBE (born 24 May 1941) is a British physicist. He is the former Goldsmiths’ Professor of Materials Science and a current Director of Research at Cambridge University, Professor of Experimental Physics at the Royal Institution in London and a Fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was President of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining in 2002 and 2003. His research interests include "all aspects of electron microscopy and analysis, semiconductors (particularly gallium nitride), ultra-high temperature aerospace materials and superconductors.' (read more) ( Several lectures at Faraday )

Peace,
headheart pssst Frank, please find another thread to bogart.