Rating: 
Summary: And On The Eighth Day, Man Created God
Review: Karen Armstrong is like the kid in the crowd who points out "The Emperor has no clothes!" She painstakingly weaves the evolution of a jealous, violent, and partisan God of the Old Testament to a more ethereal and abstract modern-day version. As the old saying goes, "God created Man, and Man returned the favor". God, having had every manner of human weakness foisted upon Him by generations of superstitious and power-hungry holy men, gradually becomes more enlightened as a reflection of the evolving moral consciousness of each new era. The attempt of a dualistic consciousness to describe a non-dualistic reality is of course a bit of a lost cause. The simple acknowledgment of the existance of a Creator by its creations would by definition preclude the lesser from ever understanding the true nature of the greater. The internal inconsistencies of fundamentalist theology are legion. One simple example of this is the simultaneous belief that a) God is infinite, and b) God can get angry, then forgive. If God is infinite then He cannot change His mind, because to change requires separate states in time, and God, being infinite, is a non-temporal being living outside the bounds of time. If God lives within time, then He had to have a beginning in time (even if that beginning were the beginning of time), in which case He is not infinite. It's got to be one or the other, and yet most theologies would insist on both. These inconsistencies point out that the "Word Of God" upon which institutions down through the ages have based their moral authority is really all about power and control, not Divine Guidance. Perhaps most importantly, however, is the idea that the concept of God represents our highest ideals and strivings. He is the ultimate projection of what is divine within ourselves, and is real in that most of us would believe that we have the spark of divine essence within us.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting but biased
Review: I have just finished this book and Jerusalem and found both to be interesting but biased. I cannot attest to whether Ms. Armstrong's "facts" are accurate or not but I can state that she has an extreme bias in favor of Islam and against Christianity and Judaism. Her language glosses over the barbaric acts of Muslims while highlighting the barbaric acts of Christians and Jews. Her tone and implication is that Islam has been beneficient and Christianity and Judaism have been hateful, especially Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: Subjectivity is the name of the game
Review: Humans have been recording their thoughts about God since the invention of writing. They have struggled to understand their place in the universe and, in doing so, develop ideas regarding their creator and purpose. Yet, ideas about the divine are much older than that, and only through writing are these thoughts relayed. In the West there are three major traditions of "people of the book", which are traditions that possess what are believed to be divinely inspired works and have committed their thoughts regarding the divine to extensive compartmentalized writings. Karen Armstrong looks at 4,000 years of religious thought in her "A History of God", a much maligned but Herculean effort designed to not only bring general understanding of historical trends and ideas in religion, but to put to paper her own ideas regarding the divine. Armstrong seeks to document the historical events and major thinkers in the three main Western religious traditions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She is not looking to wrangle with theology as much as examine how ideas of God have been transformed in a historical perspective. The idea of God means different things to different people at different times and is dependent upon historical instance, place and condition. Armstrong organizes her book by first looking at the pagan foundations of these traditions, and then linearly each in turn. She subsequently moves on to the philosophy that arose and the mysticism that organically evolved. Lastly, she addresses the God as conceived in Post-Enlightenment thought and whether, put into historical perspective, God has a place in the modern world. The major themes in the book stress the ineffability of God, God as Nothing, and most importantly, the subjective experience of God. Perhaps the greatest criticism levied against the book - and often its greatest praise - is her unrelenting attack on Christianity. Her dry evaluation seeks to put Christianity in its proper historical context, while also giving sympathetic space to one of the lesser-understood traditions in the West, Islam. Perhaps this is in reaction to Christianity being so dominant and influential, or it could be due to her seven years as a Christian nun where she left her order dissatisfied. Regardless, what one takes away is that she is not altogether fair in her evaluation of personages and thought in Christianity.
She takes the reader on a dizzying journey with an immense scope. Armstrong attempts to condense 4,000 years of religious thought into a mere 400-page book. She makes a remarkable effort at touching on the major influences, outlining the thought of the key thinkers and theological underpinnings with relative succinctness. Ultimately, for the interested reader, what mar her text are blatant errors and omissions. Armstrong has done her homework, but the inaccuracies lead one to question the overall scholarship of the book - and most insidiously - her intentions. One could chalk it up to sloppy research, but she gets so much right that when she does commit an error, coupled with her marginalization of some religious thought at the expense of others, it raises flags.
Overall, A History of God is exactly what its title leads you to expect. It is not "the" history of God; there is no definite article. It is Karen Armstrong's history of God. And if we should believe and perpetrate the subjectivity that she is a proponent of, then ultimately we learn more about her then we do in her 4,000-year relay race of religious thought.
Rating:
Summary: No history here
Review: I was hoping to get some good history on God. All I got was 600 pages of contortionist philosophy. Reading this book was like wading through mud. If you believed in God before reading this, you won't afterwards.
Rating:
Summary: Not Exactly What I Expected
Review: Received Armstrong's _History of God_ as a gift. "Great!", I thought, because I have an interest in looking at the linkages and similarities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and learning more about how they are related through history. This is exactly what I thought this book would be strong in, but it did not live up to my expectations. While it does the history of all three religions and in the history one is shown similarities and continuities among the three, far more emphasis is placed on the dissimilarities and separations of traditions within each religion. The book is organized by historical period and by tradition, with an attempt to cover each significant subtradition or thinker of religious thought. I had expected (and would rather have) a thematic organization with most chapters on specific themes that the traditions could be compared across. The author's result is history more for history's sake than as illustration of themes in, or theory of, religion. The one exception I saw to this was the central theme which informs the whole book, and that theme is not one to which I subscribe. She writes throughout from the perspective of one who has pre-concluded that God is nothing more than a social construction. The variety of religious thought and the emphasis on fractures between traditions in each religion are meant to show us that God exists only in the eye/mind of the beholders. If your interest in the book is primarily historical you are likely to be much more pleased with the book than I was, but if your interest comes from believing in the one God shared by these three religions and thus wishing to learn more about how these religions are related, I suspect you will be a bit disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A useful survey -- with some serious omissions
Review: It's easy to understand why many people find this book helpful. It represents a vast amount of research. Armstrong is a learned woman. The breadth of her knowledge is very impressive. She is also a good writer. She has a friendly style. And almost everyone will find something here of interest. I especially liked the section about Mohammed, as I know very little about Islam. Armstrong is at her best when she elucidates various issues (such as the feminine/goddess) that continue to be embarrassing to orthodox Christianity. But a book that calls itself a History of God must be held to a high standard. Armstrong's discussions of a number of important issues are inadequate -- about what one would expect of an overview. Her book, then, is a useful survey. It takes the reader competently across a vast amount of material. But the author keeps presenting more of the same, and fails to take the reader any deeper. By the 7th chapter I found myself slogging along, and losing interest. Armstrong's treatment of the Old Testament is in general competently done. Yet there are omissions. The author never mentions the Ras Shamra tablets found on the coast of Lebanon in the late 1920s, despite their extreme importance. She has imbibed, however, the correct conclusions about Judaism's great debt to Canaanite religion. Her discussion of the Book of Job (pp 65-66) fails to recognize that the ending part of Job was an afterthought, added by a later scribe, rather than original to the text. Indeed, the whole discussion of Job is inadequate. Armstrong seems unaware that most of the Wisdom Literature and the Gnostic Demi-urge followed and flowed directly from Job, which is arguably the most controversial book in the Old Testament. She fails to illuminate its meaning and true significance, which is vital to understand the role of Jesus as reformer. Armstrong's handling of the New Testament is less skillful. She allocates only four pages to Gnostic-Christianity, a woeful amount, and never even mentions the Nag Hammadi or the Gospel of Thomas. She recognizes the common ground between Christianity and Hinduism/Buddhism, but never follows up on this vitally important area with any analysis. There is no discussion of Jewish-Christianity, an issue about which orthodox Christians tread with extreme care--no mention of the Ebionites (the poor), for example, which is egregious given the reference "Blesed are the poor" in the first Beatitude of Jesus. (But then, Armstrong is not alone in this omission. I know of no other Christian scholars who have made the connection.) Armstrong also uncritically accepts the wrong judgment of orthodoxy that Jesus' dying words "Eli Eli" refer to the Father when in fact they refer to Elijah (p. 77). Her discussion of the Arian controversy in chapter 4 mentions the new doctrine of creation from nothing (ex nihilo), but the author neglects to mention the most important (and appalling) implication: the fact that orthodoxy in the process also rejected the immortality of the soul. Nor is there a discussion of the grave consequences for Christianity of this error. The author correctly mentions that Christians "were confused about the Holy Spirit" (p 115) but she fails to follow up this lead in with any clarification of this most important subject.
Rating:
Summary: Complexity Reduced
Review: I was fascinated and filled with a deep sense of satisfaction after reading this book. As a fan of comparative religion, I found this book an essential guide to those who are searching for a realistic vision of the world and the growth of theology. Understanding my own roots and the path that "God" has taken to reach my understanding, but never being able to describe it to others, I've finally found a book to describe the basis of belief. Rather than de-bunking faith , I've found new strength in knowing why the beliefs of today are so prevalent and what my existence means to God, my society, and myself.
Rating: 
Summary: Heavy Going
Review: Everybody and their brother has reviewed this book, so I'll be brief: buy it for the first 3 chapters. I'm serious. This is a good book, but unless you know tons about the history of religious philosophy/theology, those last 300 pages are going to be tough. If, on the other hand, you are really well-versed in all aspects of mono-theistic religious thinking (from 4th C. Eastern orthodox mysticism to 8th C. Sufism to 14th C. Islamic rationalism and the Kabbalah), then this book will be a refreshing overview -- sort of a whirl-wind tour of Man's Search for Meaning Since the Dawn of Time. In other words, it's a tough read. That is actually to the author's credit -- it implies she didn't over-simplify and she tried to include all major thinkers in all major mono-theistic religions. But that's a tall order. Another criticism that I have of this book is sort of a personal beef with the author. Not that I don't like Karen Armstrong, she's a fine writer, but as is evident from some of her other writings, Ms. Armstrong is on a quest for God. One she can call her own. And as her biography (Through the Narrow Gate) makes clear, she felt like she passed up a truly profound religious experience while she was a nun. So, she's continued to look for it. This search has led her to read far and wide: Jewish Kabbalah, Augustine, Aquinus, Sufi mysticism, you name it. (Which is probably how she learned all the great stuff she put in this book.) But ultimately, since she is looking for her own God, she has a bad habit of being very reductionist with everybody else's God. The conclusion you will hear over and over again, from the pre-face to the conclusion, is that God is not "out there" -- but He is the invention of each individual. In other words, he's in your head. Those exact words: "God is not 'out there'" must show up 50 times in the text. I hate to say this, but it makes me think that she is reflecting what she wants to hear from the great religious thinkers of history. It feels like she was putting her words into other people's mouths. And in doing this, she may not be being entirely faithful to what *they* said or meant. It's obvious that, to some extent, she is trying for a peace-and-love message that says "At the base all religions are the same" and that's kind of a heart-warming message. But if the basic tenent which all religions share is the notion that God is "not out there", but is actually in your head, then I think Ms. Armstrong will not have difficulty getting someone to declare a fatwa on her. (I'm exaggerating slightly, but the whole God is "out there" theme does come up a lot.) Okay, so, basically, this is a good (albeit uneven) book. Buy it for the first 3 chapters, skim the rest and realize that the autor is not without a distinct point of view.
Rating:
Summary: How we think about gods
Review: Reading Karen Armstrong's book may be compared to watching a rail yard on a commuter line. The trains look pretty much the same. The tracks, starting with a single line, branch out but remain parallel; they all seem to be going to the same place. The commuters vary little in appearance but are striking in that they spend all their time scribbling. As the trains move along they encounter sharp curves, at which point the commuters exchange their scribblings. After a moment of reflection, they begin scribbling again. It's a bizarre picture, but the absurdity of the scene in no way invalidates Armstrong's thesis. The three monotheistic religions follow parallel courses in attempting to define their god. Thinkers over the generations seek a relation for humanity with the god, but that position varies with the circumstances of history. Each definition of god becomes common, but at differing times and conditions. Armstrong's most significant statement appears near the end when she reminds us that gods seem to be a necessary part of the human condition. What else could explain the wealth of prose she recounts in her study of the human quest to define the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims? With impressive research, she charts four millennia of the human quest to define the god of these faiths. Although varying with time and place, the theme remains constant: could the god be defined, and what was its relationship with humanity? That the task remains unfulfilled is a testimony to the human need to resolve it. Armstrong questions neither the validity of the quest, nor the solutions offered over that long span of time. She does, however, provide an excellent summation of who participated in the search and why their solutions usually reflected social conditions, not divine inspiration. Armstrong starts with the Jews' desire to define their deity. The Jews have traditionally been credited with bringing monotheism to the Western world. One deity, however, doesn't make for common thinking. Over the centuries, Jewish thinkers have proposed many roles for their god. The deity has been brought into the community by some thinkers, but thrust away too distant to perceive by others. This variation of position reflects differing attitudes about the god's powers and intentions. If the god is closely involved with human affairs, then it is to be credited or blamed for the human condition. When conditions become severely negative, under oppressive rulers, for example, or the imposition of exile and dispersal, people question the god's compassion or sense of justice. Armstrong finds thinkers adapting to the conditions by relocating the god to a place distant from human affairs. Where the deity had been close and familiar, Armstrong shows how it now becomes removed and unknowable. The Jews merely set a pattern of thinking about the god, which would be followed by Christians and Muslims alike. Armstrong introduces us to the often boisterous debate over the position of their god relative to humanity. Christ's uncertain origins coupled with the degrading method of his death, complicated the culture of Jewish thought Christians inherited. If the god was remote, why and how could it manifest as a man? If it did become human, how could there be three gods when tradition stipulated one? Armstrong relates that even the compromise of the Nicene Creed didn't resolve this thorny question. Islam resolved that issue by rejecting divinity in Christ. Armstrong's description of the growth of Islam is a fine summation. She recounts how the Muslims faced exactly the question plaguing the Jews: what was the god, and how did it relate to humanity? The answers were identical, as well. The only differences lay in the causes. In the Jews it was usually forced by external events such as invasion. In Islam, the issues forcing the question were internal - corrupt or oppressive leaders and social injustice. Islam's Qur'an, Armstrong stresses, is best read in the original Arabic. With its message of justice and compassion, social inequities led to movements demanding a return to its original tenets. Again, however, the question of the god's definition remains perplexing. Social injustice led to the god's unknowability and Armstrong portrays the thinkers struggling to absolve it from permitting injustice. If divine restitution is not likely to be forthcoming, it's because the god is too remote from human affairs. It took the Enlightenment of Western Europe to institute two new ideas of the god. Is a god merely the starting point for nature's wonders, or does it even exist? Armstrong here points out that until the Enlightenment, an "atheist" was one who didn't share your [or the community's] definition of the god. Since the structure of all comunities had a religious basis, "atheism" was simply another word for non-conformity. Armstrong stresses that the increasing knowledge of nature gained from Copernicus on led to new approaches to god, even questioning its existence. The first widely known of these new atheist scholars was Diderot. In assessing humanity's place in nature, many of the new scholars stressed the notion of compassion, finding it wanting in the traditional religions. Armstrong finds Enlightenment scholars looking for justice, ethics and pity replacing piety. Whether this new quest will find fulfillment in the future without "faith" is the subject of her concluding chapter. Those seeking a god are certain to find one here. The book abounds with them; nearly every page introduces some thinker defining a deity. Armstrong's perceptive analysis shows the background to each proposed definition. She does it with clear prose, not overly scholarly in tone, but not superficial or light-hearted. She is at pains to demonstrate the three major faiths are not basically at odds. Even her short jaunts of comparison with Buddhism and Hinduism fail to dislodge her focus. Not a proselytizing work, this book can be read by anyone interested in the history of Western religions.
Rating:
Summary: A good introductory read on monotheism
Review: Karen Armstrong is, as usual, a very eloquent writer. In this book, she seeks to trace the origins and doctrine of the three monotheistic faiths, all of which claims its roots in Abraham. Unlike other authors who sometimes has a hint of biasness when writing about another religion, I detect none between the lines of Ms. Armstrong's writings. She explains Judaism, Christianity and Islam objectively without indulging in polemics. I would recommend this book for those seeking something that introduces them to the world of monotheistic faiths - understanding its doctrines, perception of world view, et. al. A must buy!
|
