History of God (Paperback)

Armstrong on Bonaventure (p. 207): In Boneventure's view, "The Christian must first descend into the depths of his own self . . . and find a vision of God that transcended our limited human notions."

What Bonaventure actually says: [from the first paragraph of The Mind's Road to God, A's cited source] "Since . . . the highest good is above us, none can be made blessed unless he ascend above himself. . . .That we may arrive at an understanding of the First Principle, which is . . . eternal and above us, we ought to proceed through the traces which are corporeal and temporal and outside us." Does it sound like Bonaventure thought God was to be found in the depths of the self?

A. on Augustine (121): Augustine's "God was not an objective reality but a spiritual presence in the complex depths of the self."

Augustine: "[God] is the first and supreme existence, who is altogether unchangeable, and who could say in the fullest sense of the words, 'I AM THAT I AM,' . . . all other things that exist, both owe their existence entirely to Him, and are good only so far as He has given it to them to be so." (On Christian Doctrine, para. 35.) Do you read that to mean that Augustine places God in his "self," or, conversely, does he place his self in God? Is his God "not an objective reality"--or the very opposite, the source of all reality?

A. on Plato's theory of Forms or Ideas (p.36): "Plato's divine Forms were not realities 'out there' but could be discovered within the self."

Huntington Cairns, noted Plato scholar, from Intro to Collected Dialogues of Plato (p. xviii): Plato's Forms or Ideas are "the ordering principle of which the world is constituted, the order in nature that all investigation seeks... The main point of Plato's argument is that the realm of Ideas is the reality of the objects which are ordered." Not realities? Discovered in the self?

See the pathology? A's modern obsession with the "self" causes her to mischaracterize every figure and doctrine she touches. Wish I had more space for other glaring examples. Just as telling are her omissions. In 400 pages, no discussion of "grace," a key to the Christian conception of God, with important analogues in other religious doctrines. Why? Grace is by definition not sourced in A's "deepest self." (Also, Taoism gets no discussion at all-maybe A didn't see The Tao when rummaging around in her deepest self.)

A distorts wildly to support her silly modernist thesis. On Paul: Paul "created the religion that we now know as Christianity." (p86) 2 sentences later: "Paul did not believe that [Jesus] had been God incarnate." (See the colossal contradiction? No cites offered to support.)

The contrary view held by literally billions of people for 1900 years, that Paul's Christology is consistent with Trinitarian doctrine (which is indeed based in part on Paul's writings), is supported by an abundance of Paul's statements. Only room for one: Jesus is "The Eternal Son of God," and "in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible . . . ; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Col. I, 16-17. Gee whiz--sure sounds a bit God-like to me. One could go on for several pages here with additional quotations from Paul directly contradictory to A's ridiculous assertion. Whether A believes Paul is irrelevant-it's inexcusable to assert without support that Paul does not believe what he says.

A's many distorted parallels are laughable. E.g., Buddhist bodhisattvas-i.e., any person who aspires to enlightenment for themselves and others--are just like the figure of Christ, who was venerated just like a Buddhist might venerate a bodhisattva. (85-86). Hmm. Bodhisattvas claim enlightenment, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah to whom was given "all power on heaven and earth." Bodhisattvas are revered by their followers, Jesus was crucified and abandoned. Some parallel. Again, it matters what what A believes, but the inaccuracies are stupendous.

A also makes the nonsensical assertion that Jesus made no claims to be superior in any way to his apostles, that he taught them that they could achieve equal power and status with him. (pp. 82-83) Now, ponder this. Abundant evidence--including letters from the apostles, the historicity of which is not challenged by A--indicates that the apostles who knew Jesus thought he made Messianic claims to a special divine status. A claims that Jesus said no such thing, and that the apostles were mistaken. She actually claims to possess a more reliable understanding of what Jesus taught the apostles than the apostles had! I am not exaggerating here. Her "thinking" is that bizarre.

Wish I had more space to expose other abundant absurdities. At the last 3 pages, she calls the experience of faith an "imaginative effort"; we are to be about "creating a new focus of meaning." [What?] A's central thesis throughout is that God is our creation, not our discovery. We create God, not vice versa. She sees religion as the new-age obsession with the inward, not the upward, the filling of the self, not the emptying of the self. Fine by me, but don't dare pretend that this egocentric self-absorption is shared by the likes of Plato and Augustine. The spiritual giants A consistently misrepresents knew better.

Do yourself a favor and actually read some Plato, Augustine, Chuang Tzu, Bonaventure, The Buddha, Aquinas, or the Dali Lama; leave Armstrong and her deepest self to her own spiritual pathologies.