Religion | Gaming | Film | Fashion | Sex | Philosophy | Education | History | Arts | Music | Travel | Photography

Karen Armstrong in Conversation with Alan Jones

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 14 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 07.02.10, 10:50 PM
I'm sure you must know then that Armstrong is considered a notorious apologist for Islam and the hijacking of that Faith by jihadists. Of course, she never addresses the central problem of the Quran which, taken as it is without any moderating license, is the demonstrable canon for intolerance and violence. It is, in fact, the unmistakable user's guide for radical jihadi operations globally.
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 07.02.10, 10:34 PM
"...but it seem that amongst much of the academic world today, eloquence is considered more important tha[n] being right." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I was thinking the very same thing as I listened to the styles of Dean Jones and Karen Armstrong unfurl. I recognized the 'professorial' syntax and high rhetoric from my university days, language that I found so hypnotically persuasive back then. I was amused to find that I'm much less susceptible to the spell cast by these cadences today---now that I've lived some and grabbed hold of the world with all its comfortable vernacular and lovely vulgarity. You are right, of course. Academics often get lost in the sounds of their own logical constructions and mistake them for truth.
Chucky Hammer Avatar
Chucky Hammer
Posted: 11.28.09, 10:04 AM
Armstrong contradicts herself At the beginning she said we have to act upon before confirming beliefs. As she says "grow into it"! Later when talking about the buddha explaining to understand your beliefs is necessary to have enlightenment!
Chucky Hammer Avatar
Chucky Hammer
Posted: 11.28.09, 09:56 AM
Armstrong has put the cart before the horse. Common sense is thrown out when she talks. To act, without reason is illogical. To act on religion without understanding it and believing it is an absurdity that too many people doing blindly. The golden rule is a rule that is mediocre at best. It is better to treat people the way they want to be treated, unless it conflicts with your own beliefs.
Phillandros Avatar
Posted: 11.03.09, 11:44 PM
Divina, divina!
Dalbanese Avatar
Posted: 04.27.09, 09:02 AM
I noted that, too. I was under the impression that Nazism did not require secularism, but perhaps I was wrong. However, how would you have felt were he to use the secularism of communism? Mao Zedong, leader of communist China for so long, has been alleged in some accounts to be responsible for 38 million deaths (both through directly ordered/administered killings or through incidental costs related to policy decisions).
josealonsoleon Avatar
Posted: 04.25.09, 11:50 AM
I particularly disliked the comment made by Jones when he hijacked (to use Armstrong often used term) and distorted the facts about what an atheist might say after chopping off the head of a poor human being. What Jones fails to say is that a vast majority of Officers and even more soldiers in the Nazi army were devout Christians. How could they not be when even the Vatican supported Hitler and had a mass sang every year on Hitler's birthday. Come on people wake up these moderates cause more harm then they contribute to fixing problems.
josealonsoleon Avatar
Posted: 04.25.09, 11:18 AM
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.......What have I learned here? Liberal and moderates such as Armstrong continue shielding the fundamentalists and extremist religious fanatics. When people like Armstrong find a way to have a full Bible reform and do away with all the immoral content, and have this newly reformed version planted in every hotel room in America, I will show much respect for the religious moderates. Until then they are just a cover-up for dangerous people which makes them just as dangerous. Amen!
alt731 Avatar
Posted: 02.21.09, 02:29 PM
Karen Armstrong is eloquent, but it seem that amongst much of the academic world today, eloquence is considered more important that being right. She is wrong on many things: for example she says the concept of biblical inerrancy was a developed in the 18th century which is just a lot of rot. Martin Luther said the scripture does not err - if that's not biblical inerrancy I don't know what is! Jesus of Nazareth said the scriptures cannot be broken. Again, this is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In fact, for Jesus, sometimes when answering questions posed to him or while he was debating with the other rabbi's, his entire argument would turn on the meaning of a single word of the Hebrew scriptures. Religious people, especially those of the abrahamic religions have believe in the inerrancy of their scriptures for thousands of years!
Posted: 11.20.08, 06:21 AM
Religions historical weight upon the backs of the religion creatures is what keeps them in general contradictor and still dangerous to peace on earth.

Advertisement ticker