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 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,