I'd have to reread the article, but I had the impression that she's a militant atheist who doesn't like *any* depiction of God. Her right, of course.
1. She didn't like the "muscular Christianity" of a masculine lion. 2. She didn't like the idea of a merciful deity that would "forgive" people and turn them into "Stepford" characters. 3. She didn't like the idea of a redeemer figure, because we redeem ourselves (or don't) and shouldn't have to look to outside help. 4. I'm sure she had some other beef, but I don't remember what it would have been.
I thought she had some valid points, but was remarkably snippy in stating them. I liked the letter from a vicar who pointed out that it was a bit unreasonable of her to object to both "muscular Christianity" and an all-forgiving deity--logically she should dislike one or the other, but not diametric opposites.
no subject
1. She didn't like the "muscular Christianity" of a masculine lion.
2. She didn't like the idea of a merciful deity that would "forgive" people and turn them into "Stepford" characters.
3. She didn't like the idea of a redeemer figure, because we redeem ourselves (or don't) and shouldn't have to look to outside help.
4. I'm sure she had some other beef, but I don't remember what it would have been.
I thought she had some valid points, but was remarkably snippy in stating them. I liked the letter from a vicar who pointed out that it was a bit unreasonable of her to object to both "muscular Christianity" and an all-forgiving deity--logically she should dislike one or the other, but not diametric opposites.