Karen Armstrong

N

notsuretobehonest

Member
Jul 1, 2021
57
23
She talks about mythos and logos. These are two key concepts in her work .
My definitions.
Logos is reason and logic and evidence and science and actual facts/events.
Mythos is fiction, narrative, story, legend, make believe.
She asserts that much of the Bible is mythos. But according to her, people didn't care whether a story was factual or not. As long as it was a good story. One that teaches us something spiritual or meaningful. Or helps us understand our own life better. A bit like I felt after reading some good novels like To Kill a Mockingbird. A story with depth.
So the Bible teaches us spiritual truths. Therefore it is I agree a special book. But also a flawed book as she describes.
 
She seems to be saying that objective truth is not important. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was the son of God or not. It's the symbolism of his story that is sacred.
This is kind of shocking for me. Though I did have my doubts.
Some basic objective truths must be established for someone to feel comfortable as a Christian. One needs to believe Jesus was actually crucified and then came back to life 3 days later. Once you start to doubt these events, you are bound for the lake of fire......haha...
 
One important point that Karen Armstrong covers real good is the history and reason behind biblical literalism (or maybe it should be called hyper-literalism). In one of her talks, she called biblical literalism a product of the scientific revolution where there was a preoccupation with literal truth. I'll post that in context:

Protestant fundamentalists, for example, claim that they read the Bible in the same way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat), and its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.
Click to expand...
Source: The Guardian

You mentioned that this information would shock some Christians but I think it would also shock some ex-Christians who left the faith under the expectations of having a factual/literal text. A lot of skeptics tend to look for flaws in the Bible expecting for it to also be literal and factual. What's important though is to note is that the early Christians and Jews were not preoccupied with literalism and facts as today, but yet they still remained Christian. I can relate to that a bit because even if I don't know if Jesus was real, but I can at least say that his message is true in that it works.
 
Last edited:
Interesting if we look at our modern day with the internet. It's hard to distinguish between the virtual world and the real world sometimes. Fake news or real news? There's a lot of anxiety over what is truth.
We do need to look past superficial answers. But maybe we will come to the same conclusion as those people 2000 years ago. As long as the story is interesting, it doesn't matter.
 
The Enlightenment period is often quoted as the thorn in the side of Christianity and its growth. I see it as a necessary evil. It meant Christianity had to lift it's game. People were getting educated and thinking for themselves.
 
Intellectualism
Armstrong seems to promote this on the one hand but criticise literal scientific rationalism. Linear thinking.
She is a mystic despite her rigorous academic endeavours. God is unknowable.
The way for a theist to communicate should be meditative . More lateral. Music for example is the language of mystics. She says having a daily practice is the key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back