Isn't Robert Spencer's mythicist theory on Muhammad pretty dangerous?

[MarcoPG]

Your “protection of mythicists” is the strawman. You insist on a label in which you contradicted yourself, and while harping on respect, you have none from this man who you labeled, categorized and then astonishingly you admit; “there is no definitive Church teaching, by the way, on an critical-historical method.” Further aside from all this, you haven’t even started to make the case for your assertion. And so, you know, it can’t be done as he also contradicts himself in his various writing of the existence of Mohammed.

You based your assumption on a rhetorical point concluded what Spencer believes as a whole. Simply not conclusive and appears as a contradiction of his other works.

Thanks, I didn’t say YOU didn’t have merit. Your argument has none. There is no theory which you yourself defined and Spencer doesn’t fit into. Nor have you made a single point in relation to a book but a theory which by your own words doesn’t fit. You think Spencer should be more polite, thats your gripe and you created a double standard here where you agree “it is about human dignity as a whole”. But have nothing to say about the double standard of treatment or “His” human dignity or Christians, let alone in how Muslims view the history or the Quran. You admit you do not know what Spencer is doing in relation to his own faith, nor is it a path you should venture into.

Basically your here to talk about a guy who you think is disrespectful. I get that. But, the argument is a strawman. The idea of Jesus not existing is old news, the way Islam uses polemics is also historic. The way Christians use polemics in regard to Islam is not new and also historic. The entire argument with Islam is disrespectful. But in a time where freedom of speech and religion is the topic often of the day. I really don’t see the Spencers of the world changing strategy. They have the right to do so. Be it anyone listens or there is any merit to their writing is another story. But let us not be so naive to think that all intentions are wonderful with Islam in this regard either. By large, right or wrong, these people feel obligated to follow their conscience and on both sides.

A better approach is contingent of people being able to be open minded and respectful. But when people believe they have reached the absolute truth such as what is believed to be in the Quran and its personal understanding from sect to sect, then as you see, there usually is no turning back.

There’s a conversation to be had, but not based on unproven accusations, the only “myth” here is indeed that strawman.

Protection of mythicists? No, I just wished I saw Robert Spencer, who is a mythicist about Muhammad, defending his theory from being used aginst him on Jeus.
Spencer is a mythicist on Muhammad, where mythicists on any figure could use his work against what he would tend to defend (Jesus). Where is the strawman, again?

Respect is a side issue that was brought on, but I can’t really take it here, since he says he respects Islam, and I think he does. But history is disturbing the islamic faith, and tht he knows too.

Where do I label Spencer…? Because I say he is a mythicist? Ok, then yes. But this has nothing to do with Catholicism.
I didn’t start making the case of my assertion? I don’t need to. I don’t claim anything new: I say, radical mythicist like Carrier could say: hey look, Spencer does on Muhammad what we could do on Jesus, and as Jesus was already treated, being compared to Horus and so on. That’s it. So all I say is Mr. Spencer could have shown after his exposal, how this can’t be applied to Jesus. That means not that the historicity o Jesus can’t be discussed, but when discussed, it should prove true. THat would prevent other mythicists, of any provenience, to attack Jesus the same way as Spencer searches to prove the invention of Muhammad. By tis I don’t says Spencer intends to attack Islam, but mythicists could use it this way.

"You based your assumption on a rhetorical point concluded what Spencer believes as a whole. Simply not conclusive and appears as a contradiction of his other works. "

He may be contradicting himself, even if so, it is not my point. I am talking about this theory of his, which is the non existence of Muhammad. As he said, he asserted that in all likelihood he existed, but he was too optimistic about it, as he looked further.
What I am looking to now is how this mythicist theory on Muhammad, contradicting his previous views or not, may be dangerous for the reality of Jesus. If you don’t see my point, I am sorry, maybe others do. But all the side issues you bring should be taken in a second time. I am not talking about Spencer being or not an authority, being or not a good Catholic.

“You think Spencer should be more polite”, no more careful on defending his theory from bad usage. Polite he remains. Some others brought this into the discussion, therefore I said yes, we should be respectful it is true. In this I never really doubted Spencer’s intention. But the problems would be the side effects of this theory.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, I just wished I saw Robert Spencer, who is a mythicist

There was no sense reading anything after this. Its a false assumption and strawman.

 

[MarcoPG]

There was no sense reading anything after this. Its a false assumption and strawman.

How do you call someone who wants to prove the non historicity of a figure?

It would be nice that you quote whole sentences, so that people can see why I call him a mythicist, and why it is different than people like Price and Carrier.

 

[MarcoPG]

Look, that was all my point:
As seen on FB:

"Mythicist Milwaukee

Robert Spencer lays out compelling arguments for the myth or non-existence of Muhammad…"

So, a myth theory on Muhammad used by mythicists

and then:

(rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/mythicism-two-theories/)

Robert wrote:
“I am not in the least interested in falsifying Islam. My interest in Islam is focused on Sharia threats to human rights and the jihad threat to free societies. People who believe in Islam but leave infidels alone are fine by me and I have no interest in disturbing their myth. My interest in the question of Muhammad’s existence is historical.”

Well, I will have to trust you on that one. At least until I see a book by Robert Spencer on the historical Jesus and see if he is prepared to use the same methods he applied on Muhammad to Jesus.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How do you call someone who wants to prove the non historicity of a figure?

It would be nice that you quote whole sentences, so that people can see why I call him a mythicist, and why it is different than people like Price and Carrier.

Listen you can carry on about Spencer and label him however you wish. Ironically the same charity you suggest he should give all others, you refuse to give to him.

Instead you attack him by labeling him with an overall approach and strangely group him in a fabricated understanding of your own mind. Of which you contradict yourself as Spencer doesn’t reject Christ as a myth, nor is it factual he rejects Mohammed as a myth in his complete body of work. So one either has to conclude a label simply doesn’t apply as proposed or it does. In which case its your burden of proof to prove the accusation, in other words its not for me to disprove it. All I need to do is call your bluff, which I did as I believe its nothing but a strawman.

None of this will change in 10 or 1000 posts. I have no desire to defend Spencer, but to reduce all the writing of his to a catch all term simply is incorrect.

 

[MarcoPG]

Listen you can carry on about Spencer and label him however you wish. Ironically the same charity you suggest he should give all others, you refuse to give to him.

Instead you attack him by labeling him with an overall approach and strangely group him in a fabricated understanding of your own mind. ** 1) Of which you contradict yourself as Spencer doesn’t reject Christ as a myth**, 2) nor is it factual he rejects Mohammed as a myth in hix complete body of work. So one either has to conclude a label simply doesn’t apply as proposed or it does. In which case its your burden of proof to prove the accusation, in other words not for me to disprove it. All I need to do is call your bluff, which I did as I believe its nothing but a strawman.

None of this will change in 10 or 1000 posts. I have no desire to defend Spencer, but to reduce all the writing of his to a catch all term simply is incorrect.

1. I never said that! Mythicism isn’t only about Jesus.
2. No, and he maybe cannot definitively. Still he has a theory.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. I never said that! Mythicism isn’t only about Jesus.
2. No, and he maybe cannot definitively. Still he has a theory.

You specifically stated Mythicism involves denial of both Christ and Mohammed. Of which this doesn’t apply to Spencer thus a contradiction. So lets keep the conversation honest and not deceptive and illusive.

You have no defined paradigm of this understanding of mythicism, you simply stuck the man in a concocted reality of your own devise.

His theory proposed a rhetorical question apparently upsetting others. How dare they suggest Mohammed didn’t exist. Seems to be the only issue.

 

[MarcoPG]

1. You specifically stated Mythicism involves denial of both Christ and Mohammed. Of which this doesn’t apply to Spencer thus a contradiction. So lets keep the conversation honest and not deceptive and illusive.
2. You have no defined paradigm of this understanding of mythicism, you simply stuck the man in a concocted reality of your own devise.

His theory proposed a rhetorical question apparently upsetting others. How dare they suggest Mohammed didn’t exist. Seems to be the only issue.

1. No, or show me where I stated that the catholic R. Spencer denies Jesus the same way he questions Mohammed. What I did is differenciate his mythicism -on Muhammad - from the radical mythicists which question and/or deny anything which claims coming from God. It might be that you didn’t get my point because you thought I was labelling Spencer a mythicist on Jesus.
2. Here is a definition of “mythicist” from a mythicist. stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. …]

That’s why I don’t apply the term mythicist only on those theorizing the myth of Jesus.

1. To some, yes, as it is a marginal opinion that Muhammad didn’t exist. For believers particularly, questioning Muhammad is questioning Islam. But Spencer says clearly it’s not about religion, it is about history.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your exact quote…

mythicists would tend to dismiss both, if they can dismiss either Mohammed or Jesus. One isn’t supported by better evidence than the other, they may say.

My point Spencer doesn’t reject Christ, nor is his overall body of work conclusive of this in regards to Mohammed.

And this…

What is a Mythicist?

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

The term “mythicism” as it has come to be “developed in the present day” “may” be defined

And finally who in the world is D.M. Murdock, who is an independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology. uch:

If one would consider her an expert then Spencer ought to be teaching at the Vatican

 

[MarcoPG]

But I don’t call Spencer a mythicist the same way a member of the Jesus seminar is, because I thought it was clear that a Catholic can’t reject the reality of Christ.

I don’t intend to say Murdock is an expert, I say there are mythicists which use the word outside of the Christian context.

And yes

 

[GaryTaylor]

But I don’t call Spencer a mythicist the same way a member of the Jesus seminar is, because I thought it was clear that a Catholic can’t reject the reality of Christ.

I don’t intend to say Murdock is an expert, I say there are mythicists which use the word outside of the Christian context.

And yes

I think his entire body of work should be read as I mentioned earlier. Certainly a controversial figure. It would be one thing had he wrote one or two books, but he is steady at writing with these 100 page books, which in effect, I imagine, are like Sidney Sheldon novels at this point with a cult following.

 

[MarcoPG]

I think his entire body of work should be read as I mentioned earlier. Certainly a controversial figure. It would be one thing had he wrote one or two books, but he is steady at writing with these 100 page books, which in effect, I imagine, are like Sidney Sheldon novels at this point with a cult following.

Ok thank you. It looks like you understood my point. So for you his work doesn’t tend to disprove the historicity of Muhammad.

My response wouls be: He changed his mind on Muhammad The third chapter of Did Muhammad Exist? is called Inventing Muhammad. So surely he isn’t rejecting Muhammad, but his view is one of an invented character.

One can change his mind without being inconsistent, since he admits, as I said before, his view on Muhammad’s existence seemed to be too optimistic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ok thank you. It looks like you understood my point. So for you his work doesn’t tend to disprove the historicity of Muhammad.

My response wouls be: He changed his mind on Muhammad The third chapter of Did Muhammad Exist? is called Inventing Muhammad. So surely he isn’t rejecting Muhammad, but his view is one of an invented character.

One can change his mind without being inconsistent, since he admits, as I said before, his view on Muhammad’s existence seemed to be too optimistic.

My only real issue from his first book was what appeared to me as an effort to infringe on his freedom of speech. From this point comes many concerns. In the final analysis people have this right and as we see many very suspect ideals through it are promoted. From the on-set I couldn’t see any wrong. But as we move a couple years past, I have my doubts. And especially about the numerous web sights which completely move past faith and religion to political agenda. So in essence thats whos agenda is promoted. I have issues with that and we have no transparency but by chasing links and its not a pretty sight as you do. So yes. I have my doubts all the way around. You know in this country as you see, it doesn’t take much to start a fire burning. The problem is always the same, once its started they are hard to slow down. So there has to be prudence.