Changes

Her conclusions regarding God conform to her experience, or lack thereof, and the faith that Armstrong promotes is seen by some as being closer to atheism than that of the [[Bible]]. She rejects the Biblical revelation of God as a literal benign creator, and is akin to [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] in imagining that there is "no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection." In an interview with the [[Wall Street Journal]],<ref>Sept. 12, 2009</ref> the militant [[atheist]]  [[Richard Dawkins]], who himself wars against a god of his own imagination, responded to Armstrong's arguments in her book A ''Case for God'' by stating, "Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

Her conclusions regarding God conform to her experience, or lack thereof, and the faith that Armstrong promotes is seen by some as being closer to atheism than that of the [[Bible]]. She rejects the Biblical revelation of God as a literal benign creator, and is akin to [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] in imagining that there is "no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection." In an interview with the [[Wall Street Journal]],<ref>Sept. 12, 2009</ref> the militant [[atheist]]  [[Richard Dawkins]], who himself wars against a god of his own imagination, responded to Armstrong's arguments in her book A ''Case for God'' by stating, "Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

In contrast to the consistent references in the Bible to God as the literal Creator of the [[Universe]], and who does reveal Himself through what He has made and has worked in literal events, Armstrong subscribes to the discredited<ref>http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html#jedp</ref> Documentary Hypothesis Theory, and also asserts that the literalistic reading of Scripture, when contrary to what [[science]] may say, was a development that began in the 17th century. She contrasts this to the "a good myth" of paganism, which she sees as as "an early form of psychology," and which she advocates as showing"how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity."  Rather than being a literal reality one can experience, the "God" Armstrong advocates "is '''merely''' a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enables cultivating new capacities of mind and heart."<ref>''Man vs. God'', The Wall Street Journal,  Sept. 12, 2009</ref>

In contrast to the consistent references in the Bible to God as the literal Creator of the [[Universe]], and who does reveal Himself through what He has made and has worked in literal events, Armstrong subscribes to the discredited<ref>http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html#jedp</ref> Documentary Hypothesis Theory, and also asserts that the literalistic reading of Scripture, when contrary to what [[science]] may say, was a development that began in the 17th century. She contrasts this to the "a good myth" of paganism, which she sees as "an early form of psychology," and which she advocates as showing"how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity."  Rather than being a literal reality one can experience, the "God" Armstrong advocates "is '''merely''' a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enables cultivating new capacities of mind and heart."<ref>''Man vs. God'', The Wall Street Journal,  Sept. 12, 2009</ref>

In another statement which further defines this she states,  

In another statement which further defines this she states,  

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.  

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.  

*On the Qur'an]]:  

*On the [[Qur'an]]:  

"The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword."  

"The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword."  

==Critical analysis==  

==Critical analysis==  

Armstrong presents the Qur'an as saying "that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while failing to see clear answers or theology in the Bible. However, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, while what is expressed in its disjointed suras is an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as is seen in the [[Pact of Umar.]]<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament," with its rejection of physical religious violence and retaliation , was part of Muhammad's earlier preMedenic  "revelations" (when he was a minority, and militarily weak), in which there is one verse (2:256) clearly stating there should be "no compulsion in religion," while it is well evident in many other places that the Qur'an clearly exhorts retaliation and religious violence.  

Armstrong presents the Qur'an as saying "that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while failing to see clear answers or theology in the Bible. However, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, while what is expressed in its disjointed suras is an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as is seen in the [[Pact of Umar.]]<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament," with its rejection of physical religious violence and retaliation, was part of Muhammad's earlier preMedenic  "revelations" (when he was a minority, and militarily weak), in which there is one verse (2:256) clearly stating there should be "no compulsion in religion," while it is well evident in many other places that the Qur'an clearly exhorts retaliation and religious violence.  

   

   

The Qur'an is far more restrictive in its scope of communication than the Bible,<ref>http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/Vol1/4a.html</ref><ref>http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc.htm</ref>  lacking the manner of context and clarity of theology which the Bible provides in this area, with its extensive historical narratives and theological treatises. If this was the case in the Qur'an then it might enable restricting its religious violence to simply being sanctioned in a truly defensive context or offensively in a limited geographical area, versus commands such as to fight until the only worship be of Allah (2:193; 8:39) being used to justify world - wide physical Jihad. In addition, oppressing or making war against Islam can easily be understood to include ideological opposition.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html</ref> It is also evidenced that the teaching of the [[Hadith]] promotes physical violence.<ref>http://www.muslimhope.com/WarInIslam.htm</ref>   

The Qur'an is far more restrictive in its scope of communication than the Bible,<ref>http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/Vol1/4a.html</ref><ref>http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc.htm</ref>  lacking the manner of context and clarity of theology which the Bible provides in this area, with its extensive historical narratives and theological treatises. If this was the case in the Qur'an then it might enable restricting its religious violence to simply being sanctioned in a truly defensive context or offensively in a limited geographical area, versus commands such as to fight until the only worship be of Allah (2:193; 8:39) being used to justify world - wide physical Jihad. In addition, oppressing or making war against Islam can easily be understood to include ideological opposition.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html</ref> It is also evidenced that the teaching of the [[Hadith]] promotes physical violence.<ref>http://www.muslimhope.com/WarInIslam.htm</ref>