الترجمة الحرفية للكتاب ضيعت كتير من مضمونه .. زائد ان الكتاب نفسه لف فى نقط بعيدة عن محتواه بيحاول يوصل لنقطة (( الله لماذا )) بتفسير آراء فلسفية للتكوين العقلى للخلق .. كان من الاسهل انه يطرح الاراء بدون تكليف كتير .. فشل فى مضمون العرض This book is a hot mess. I didn't think I would ever even use that phrase much less to describe a book but this one deserved it. I try to take notes while reading (in this case listening) and usually average around 6-7 points. I got to 14 with this one. (I have condensed some.)In no particular order, here they are. 1. She tries way too hard to write a grandiose spiritual narrative (or history...it's hard to tell). 2. She does make some striking observations that come so close yet are so far from the truth. (Disclaimer: I am a devout Christian and disagree with her views. However, the vast majority of my criticism has nothing to do with worldview and everything to do with abysmal writing.)3. Her statements of basic Christian fact show her to be extremely confused. For example, she states that literal interpretation of the Bible began with Augustine. Even a casual reading of the Bible's own text would show that many of it's authors and historical characters believe in literal interpretation. All of those people lived centuries, even millennia before Augustine. This leads me to question her statements about the beliefs of other religions. 4. Almost without fail, she dismisses the face value of one primary text, the Bible, because, according to the author, it couldn't possibly be true. Instead she misinterprets the text and twists it (see her convoluted dismissal of the definition of "credo") into knots to make her point work.5. In the same vein as #4, the author gives immense weight to extra biblical books. As someone who purports to be a historian, shouldn't all primary text be given the same weight? She appears to discount the canonical books simply because they are canonical. 6. The section on medieval philosophy (many of those philosophers also twisted themselves into knots trying to make their dialecticals work) reeks of fan girl behavior. 7. My biggest issue with her is that she claims to be a historian of religion. This book follows neither historiographical or theological narrative frameworks. Instead it is an ugly, roughly chronological mash up of whatever floats her boat in an attempt to prove "god."If she meant this book as a persuasive argument she failed miserably. I highly recommend that people do not read this book. It is not worth the effort.
Wuiiih...memang buku beratberat karena tebalberat karena isisebelum hilang, ada beberapa hal yang harus distabilo:Bab 1 : Homo Religiosus---di banyak bagian dunia, bulan secara simbolis dihubungkan dengan sejumlah fenomena yang ternyata tidak terkait: perempuan, air, vegeasi, ular dan kesuburan. Apa yang sama diantara mereka semua adalah daya hidup regeneratif yang dapat memperbarui diri sendiri...(hal 59)*I love it. tuh kan...perempuan itu special :D*Bab 2 : Tuhan---agama israel kuno pada masa itu tidak amat berbeda dari agama tetangga-tetangganya. J dan E menampilkan Abraham menyembah El, Tuhan Tinggi di tempat itu, dan tampaknya pada awalnya Yahweh hanya salah satu dari "yang suci" dalam rombongan El. Tetapi orang Israel juga menyembah dewa-dewa lain hingga abad ke-6, walaupun ada seruan dari sekelompok kecil nabi dan imam yang menginginkan mereka untuk menymbah Yahweh saja. (hal. 93)*what?...Mitos tentang Tuhan sepertinya terbentuk oleh kumpulan sejarah*lanjut baca pelan2 euy...hufft
—alexm789
I really don't think it's possible for Karen Armstrong to write a bad book. Her knowledge of religious history is ever-astounding. Her understanding of true spirituality is profound and clearly communicated. It was interesting to read the number of times the literal v. figurative argument has reared its ugly head. Her critique of literalism and the obsession with and idolatry of certainty is excellent in all its forms: theist and atheist.
—Vikram
Great book! Sort of a counterpoint to Reason for God...
—ihrtmusic
Simply amazing. Such a good and informative read.
—1234
The book seemed sluggish and repetitious.
—allen
