Their fruits

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not doing any research for you regarding why Catholics use Robert Spencers information on Islam.

Google is your friend.

I couldn’t care less of what you provide for me regarding your post above.

Just because one presents something at a Catholic University does not mean he/she is Catholic.

Robert Spencer is however a Catholic.

-Mr. Spencer has a BA and a MA in Religious Studies. His thesis for his MA was about the Catholic faith, not the Islamic faith. He has no, nada, zero, less than 1 degrees in the subject matter he has claimed to have been studying since the 80’s. The subject matter he has written many books on and claims to be an “expert” on. My minor in Middle Eastern politics for my MA in Political Science and my two tours in Iraq makes me a more qualified “expert” than him.

-Being Catholic = being right? So Pelosi’s views on abortion are fully in line with what the Church teaches? She is Catholic after all.

 

[Servant19]

Oldcatholicguy, what a wonderful servant of Christ you are. The level of justice and fair-mindedness you have shown in this thread is a testament to your Faith.

As a Baha’i, I would be happy to live in a world with only me, and a million of you

God bless you!



.

 

[dronald]

Really? I guess you missed the class in school that covered the time period in European history in which burning witches at the stake was justified with Exodus 22:18. Would you like other examples of people using Bible passages to support their actions? Like the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the Lord’s Resistance Army? Isn’t there a whole segment of Protestantism that supports Israel due to passages in the OT?

Ah, the ole “Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” argument. Or how about the WBC, as awful as they are who have never taken another human life and have only (60?) members.

Rehashed arguments when Muslims still to this day quote the Qur’an as justification for murder. This is every single day by the way, in so many different areas. For example, today a Catholic families house was burnt down.

asianews.it/news-en/Home-of-Catholic-family-torched-in-Bangladesh-30450.html

I could quote every incident that was done against Christians by Muslims in the name of Islam this week; but what’s the point?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Ah, the ole “Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” argument. Or how about the WBC, as awful as they are who have never taken another human life and have only (60?) members.

Rehashed arguments when Muslims still to this day quote the Qur’an as justification for murder. This is every single day by the way, in so many different areas. For example, today a Catholic families house was burnt down.

asianews.it/news-en/Home-of-Catholic-family-torched-in-Bangladesh-30450.html

I could quote every incident that was done against Christians by Muslims in the name of Islam this week; but what’s the point?

It’s only the “ole Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” for people who either-
a- are moral relativists and think that morality changes over time and something happening X years ago no longer matters
or
b- are trying to dismiss a valid point because they can’t actually counter it.

Or did I miss a third option?

 

[dronald]

It’s only the “ole Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” for people who either-
a- are moral relativists and think that morality changes over time and something happening X years ago no longer matters
or
b- are trying to dismiss a valid point because they can’t actually counter it.

Or did I miss a third option?

3- now they all have Bible’s and know that killing is not an option according to Jesus Christ.

If Christianity was as easy to misinterpret as Islam today, we would still be killing at the frequency in the name of Christianity as they do. Actually more so since Christianity is larger.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

3- now they all have Bible’s and know that killing is not an option according to Jesus Christ.

If Christianity was as easy to misinterpret as Islam today, we would still be killing at the frequency in the name of Christianity as they do. Actually more so since Christianity is larger.

Option 3 really only works if you assume the priests during that time period were all incompetent or too lazy to teach their flocks and that it was on the flock to read them Bible for themselves and figure out what Christ really taught. I frankly don’t have such a low opinion of our past clergy. We would also have to ignore the fact that witch burning and hanging actually peaked after personal ownership of the Bible became much more common.

 

[RPRPsych]

So in other words you can’t find any. As for CAF and EWTN, would you like me to present you a list of various individuals with views that run counter to Church teachings that have spoken at Catholic universities? I’m asking because apparently if one speaks or is asked to speak by an organization associated with the Church they must be an expert and their views must be supported by the Church.

I don’t think the position of those universities is the same.

There’s a world of difference between, say, a pro-abortion politician speaking at a Catholic university, and CAF inviting an expert to speak on a particular topic. CAF and EWTN are both known for orthodoxy. Can you point out an occasion when CAF has invited a heterodox speaker?

Is he strident and does he exaggerate at times? I’d say yes, because I live in a country where Muslims outnumber us (though they are not the majority) and most of them are fine people, both morally and socially.

However, Spencer (like Gabriele Amorth) is passionate about his subject and the dangers involved in it, and the equation changes when living in an Islamic country.

I’d love to believe that what you say is true, and I bow to your experience. But I think Spencer makes a good case.

 

[dronald]

Option 3 really only works if you assume the priests during that time period were all incompetent or too lazy to teach their flocks and that it was on the flock to read them Bible for themselves and figure out what Christ really taught. I frankly don’t have such a low opinion of our past clergy. We would also have to ignore the fact that witch burning and hanging actually peaked after personal ownership of the Bible became much more common.

I have a low opinion of all who are too incompetent to know that Jesus would be against burning human beings to death.

Why isn’t this practiced anymore?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t think the position of those universities is the same.

There’s a world of difference between, say, a pro-abortion politician speaking at a Catholic university, and CAF inviting an expert to speak on a particular topic. CAF and EWTN are both known for orthodoxy. Can you point out an occasion when CAF has invited a heterodox speaker?

Is he strident and does he exaggerate at times? I’d say yes, because I live in a country where Muslims outnumber us (though they are not the majority) and most of them are fine people, both morally and socially.

However, Spencer (like Gabriele Amorth) is passionate about his subject and the dangers involved in it, and the equation changes when living in an Islamic country.

I’d love to believe that what you say is true, and I bow to your experience. But I think Spencer makes a good case.

-EWTN and CAF are known for their orthodoxy on the Catholic Faith, not on their knowledge of another religion. The episode on EWTN that I watched that had Mr. Spencer on it didn’t cover what the Church teaches about Islam, it was all about what Islam taught and secular issues associated with Islam.
-Exaggeration should be a cause for concern. There is no need to exaggerate if what one is saying is true.
-Not only was Martin Luther passionate about his subject, he was far more qualified on his subject than Mr. Spencer is on his own. I don’t think any Catholic would hold that Martin Luther came to the correct conclusion on his subject matter.

Edit- Addition-
-This is what an expert in Islam looks like- cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=1860&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I have a low opinion of all who are too incompetent to know that Jesus would be against burning human beings to death.

Why isn’t this practiced anymore?

Ah, so you apparently no longer think easy access to the Bible is a requirement for knowing burning people to death is wrong. So much for your option 3. I guess we are left with my two options. Unless you have a new option 3?

 

[Servant19]

I don’t think the position of those universities is the same.

There’s a world of difference between, say, a pro-abortion politician speaking at a Catholic university, and CAF inviting an expert to speak on a particular topic. CAF and EWTN are both known for orthodoxy. Can you point out an occasion when CAF has invited a heterodox speaker?

Is he strident and does he exaggerate at times? I’d say yes, because I live in a country where Muslims outnumber us (though they are not the majority) and most of them are fine people, both morally and socially.

However, Spencer (like Gabriele Amorth) is passionate about his subject and the dangers involved in it, and the equation changes when living in an Islamic country.

I’d love to believe that what you say is true, and I bow to your experience. But I think Spencer makes a good case.

How would you feel if a Muslim guy was teaching the Muslims on a Muslim forum about Catholicism?

Would you have NO DOUBT that everything he was teaching the Muslims was true and to the letter correct about Catholicism?



Think about that for a while…

.

 

[dronald]

Ah, so you apparently no longer think easy access to the Bible is a requirement for knowing burning people to death is wrong. So much for your option 3. I guess we are left with my two options. Unless you have a new option 3?

What in the world are you talking about? The fact that we can easily access the Bible means there is no chance we’ll go on burning witches.

You’re equating Christianity to Islam in terms of it being a peaceful Religion and using 300 year old examples. We still aren’t doing these things, do you have any idea why?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I don’t think so! Quran just says Jews didn’t kill jesus! Quran does not say God saved him from cross!

On the other hand: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit” If Muhammad is a bad tree why did he bear good friuts such as teaching God is one or Jesus is the Messiah?

Are they good fruits as a Christian defines them? I don’t think his fruits are unreservedly in the plus column.

The Koran denies the divinity of Christ and denies the incarnation of the Son (5:17,72; cf. 9:31) and, consequently, is so monotheistic it denies the Trinity (4:171; 5:73; 112:2-3); and it denies that Jesus died for our salvation (4:157-8).

Here’s John’s answer to what does and does not constitute good fruits in this regard: “This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God.” (1 Jn 4:2-3)

“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (Jn 1:14)

“And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.” (1 Jn 5:11-12)

 

[Servant19]

Are they good fruits as a Christian defines them? I don’t think his fruits are unreservedly in the plus column.

The Koran denies the divinity of Christ and denies the incarnation of the Son (5:17,72; cf. 9:31) and, consequently, is so monotheistic it denies the Trinity (4:171; 5:73; 112:2-3); and it denies that Jesus died for our salvation (4:157-8).

Here’s John’s answer to what does and does not constitute good fruits in this regard: “This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God.” (1 Jn 4:2-3)

“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (Jn 1:14)

“And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.” (1 Jn 5:11-12)

Firstly, 1 John talks about Jesus coming in the flesh, which the Quran acknowledges without reservation.

Secondly, the “fruits of the Spirit” are clearly and plainly listed in Galatians:

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

…and Muhammad demonstrated all these fruits in abundance…

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Firstly, 1 John talks about Jesus coming in the flesh, which the Quran acknowledges without reservation.

Soooo, firstly, that would be a “yes”? The Koran does deny the divinity of Christ and denies the incarnation of the Son (5:17,72; cf. 9:31) and, consequently, is so monotheistic it denies the Trinity (4:171; 5:73; 112:2-3); and it denies that Jesus died for our salvation (4:157-8).

Further, that would be another “yes”: the Koran affirms that Jesus is a figure in history, but unlike John denies that Jesus Christ (the only begotten Son of God, the Word made flesh) came in the flesh.

Secondly, the “fruits of the Spirit” are clearly and plainly listed in Galatians:

…and Muhammad demonstrated all these fruits in abundance…

Curiously your comprehension of fruits in the NT excludes John, the subject under discussion. You might want to read all of John 15, but this gets to the heart of it: “Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.” (15:4)

Then you can explain, as I said in the beginning, how one can bear “good fruits as a Christian defines them” (by remaining in Christ) and yet deny the divinity of Christ, the incarnation of Christ, the saving death of Christ, and the Trinity.

 

[mdcpensive1]

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
-St James

Thank you,. My spirituality is to attain to oneness like we are called to be in Jn 17:21

 

[oldcatholicguy]

dronald:
What in the world are you talking about? I’m continuing our conversation. Since you seem to have a problem tracking where we are in the conversation I’ve listed it below for you.-
Me- Really? I guess you missed the class in school that covered the time period in European history in which burning witches at the stake was justified with Exodus 22:18. Would you like other examples of people using Bible passages to support their actions? Like the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the Lord’s Resistance Army? Isn’t there a whole segment of Protestantism that supports Israel due to passages in the OT?
You- Ah, the ole “Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” argument. Or how about the WBC, as awful as they are who have never taken another human life and have only (60?) members.

Rehashed arguments when Muslims still to this day quote the Qur’an as justification for murder. This is every single day by the way, in so many different areas. For example, today a Catholic families house was burnt down.

asianews.it/news-en/Home-…esh-30450.html

I could quote every incident that was done against Christians by Muslims in the name of Islam this week; but what’s the point?
Me-It’s only the “ole Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” for people who either-
a- are moral relativists and think that morality changes over time and something happening X years ago no longer matters
or
b- are trying to dismiss a valid point because they can’t actually counter it.

Or did I miss a third option?
You-3- now they all have Bible’s and know that killing is not an option according to Jesus Christ. If Christianity was as easy to misinterpret as Islam today, we would still be killing at the frequency in the name of Christianity as they do. Actually more so since Christianity is larger.
Me-Option 3 really only works if you assume the priests during that time period were all incompetent or too lazy to teach their flocks and that it was on the flock to read them Bible for themselves and figure out what Christ really taught. I frankly don’t have such a low opinion of our past clergy. We would also have to ignore the fact that witch burning and hanging actually peaked after personal ownership of the Bible became much more common.
You- I have a low opinion of all who are too incompetent to know that Jesus would be against burning human beings to death. Why isn’t this practiced anymore?
Me- Ah, so you apparently no longer think easy access to the Bible is a requirement for knowing burning people to death is wrong. So much for your option 3. I guess we are left with my two options. Unless you have a new option 3?

The fact that we can easily access the Bible means there is no chance we’ll go on burning witches. The increase in witch burnings and witch hunts after the Bible became a common item in most people’s house shows the opposite of what you claim. Easy access to the Bible apparently means there is an increased chance people will burn witches.

You’re equating Christianity to Islam in terms of it being a peaceful Religion and using 300 year old examples. We still aren’t doing these things, do you have any idea why?
Oh I am? Mind showing me where I’m comparing or equating Christianity to Islam? For some strange reason I thought I was doing a rather good job of defeating the argument that cherry picking passages from the Quran is a valid method of understanding Islam. If cherry picking is a valid method, it must be valid for the Bible as well. Hence my linking a site full of cherry picked Bible passages and our discussion that developed from that. I was in fact challenged to find an example of Christians using the Bible to justify the murder of someone, which I think I did rather well. Then all of a sudden there is some sort of statute of limitations placed on the argument. Christians doing bad things and quoting the Bible while doing bad things doesn’t count if it is done before some magical number of years.

 

[RPRPsych]

-EWTN and CAF are known for their orthodoxy on the Catholic Faith, not on their knowledge of another religion. The episode on EWTN that I watched that had Mr. Spencer on it didn’t cover what the Church teaches about Islam, it was all about what Islam taught and secular issues associated with Islam.

That’s true, but if it conflicted with Church teaching on Islam, EWTN wouldn’t have aired it.

-Exaggeration should be a cause for concern. There is no need to exaggerate if what one is saying is true.

As TV Tropes would put it, “Some anvils do need to be dropped”. If X is a pro-life activist, and he says “Abortion is the greatest social evil of our time!”, he may be exaggerating (though I would agree with him), but he is also making a true statement about the heinous immorality of abortion. So exaggeration, while requiring discernment on the part of a listener or reader, may be no more than a venial offence in such cases.

-Not only was Martin Luther passionate about his subject, he was far more qualified on his subject than Mr. Spencer is on his own. I don’t think any Catholic would hold that Martin Luther came to the correct conclusion on his subject matter.

Straw man. Luther broke away from the Church, rejected the Faith, and made up his own version of Christianity based on Augustine, mistranslations of the Bible (the notorious sola fide) and his own complexes. Amorth and Spencer are still well within the Church, and neither has been censured (unlike, say, Michael Voris.)

Edit- Addition-
-This is what an expert in Islam looks like- cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=1860&pagetypeID=8&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

That’s nice. But I wonder what victims of 9/11, FGM, honour killings, or rapes-covered-up-by-stonings (none of which have ever been practiced by Christian nations) would learn from this expert.

 

[dronald]

What in the world are you talking about? I’m continuing our conversation. Since you seem to have a problem tracking where we are in the conversation I’ve listed it below for you.-
Me- Really? I guess you missed the class in school that covered the time period in European history in which burning witches at the stake was justified with Exodus 22:18. Would you like other examples of people using Bible passages to support their actions? Like the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the Lord’s Resistance Army? Isn’t there a whole segment of Protestantism that supports Israel due to passages in the OT?
You- Ah, the ole “Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” argument. Or how about the WBC, as awful as they are who have never taken another human life and have only (60?) members.

Rehashed arguments when Muslims still to this day quote the Qur’an as justification for murder. This is every single day by the way, in so many different areas. For example, today a Catholic families house was burnt down.

asianews.it/news-en/Home-…esh-30450.html

I could quote every incident that was done against Christians by Muslims in the name of Islam this week; but what’s the point?
Me-It’s only the “ole Let’s quote a time 300 years ago” for people who either-
a- are moral relativists and think that morality changes over time and something happening X years ago no longer matters
or
b- are trying to dismiss a valid point because they can’t actually counter it.

Or did I miss a third option?
You-3- now they all have Bible’s and know that killing is not an option according to Jesus Christ. If Christianity was as easy to misinterpret as Islam today, we would still be killing at the frequency in the name of Christianity as they do. Actually more so since Christianity is larger.
Me-Option 3 really only works if you assume the priests during that time period were all incompetent or too lazy to teach their flocks and that it was on the flock to read them Bible for themselves and figure out what Christ really taught. I frankly don’t have such a low opinion of our past clergy. We would also have to ignore the fact that witch burning and hanging actually peaked after personal ownership of the Bible became much more common.
You- I have a low opinion of all who are too incompetent to know that Jesus would be against burning human beings to death. Why isn’t this practiced anymore?
Me- Ah, so you apparently no longer think easy access to the Bible is a requirement for knowing burning people to death is wrong. So much for your option 3. I guess we are left with my two options. Unless you have a new option 3?

The fact that we can easily access the Bible means there is no chance we’ll go on burning witches. The increase in witch burnings and witch hunts after the Bible became a common item in most people’s house shows the opposite of what you claim. Easy access to the Bible apparently means there is an increased chance people will burn witches.

You’re equating Christianity to Islam in terms of it being a peaceful Religion and using 300 year old examples. We still aren’t doing these things, do you have any idea why?
Oh I am? Mind showing me where I’m comparing or equating Christianity to Islam? For some strange reason I thought I was doing a rather good job of defeating the argument that cherry picking passages from the Quran is a valid method of understanding Islam. If cherry picking is a valid method, it must be valid for the Bible as well. Hence my linking a site full of cherry picked Bible passages and our discussion that developed from that. I was in fact challenged to find an example of Christians using the Bible to justify the murder of someone, which I think I did rather well. Then all of a sudden there is some sort of statute of limitations placed on the argument. Christians doing bad things and quoting the Bible while doing bad things doesn’t count if it is done before some magical number of years.

Thanks. I was utterly confused but now that you’ve quoted our entire conversation I’m back on track.

You’re saying then, that one can just as easily quote the Bible out of context to do horrendous acts; I’m saying this isn’t done at nearly the rate Muslims do so with their Qur’an. I don’t cherry pick the Qur’an, Muslims do; Christians don’t for their Bible.

We aren’t burning witches, heretics on a daily basis, why is this? Muslims kill while quoting their text at a much greater rate than Christians considering our text can be cherry picked just as easily as theirs, why is this?

 

[Servant19]

Thanks. I was utterly confused but now that you’ve quoted our entire conversation I’m back on track.

You’re saying then, that one can just as easily quote the Bible out of context to do horrendous acts; I’m saying this isn’t done at nearly the rate Muslims do so with their Qur’an. I don’t cherry pick the Qur’an, Muslims do; Christians don’t for their Bible.

We aren’t burning witches, heretics on a daily basis, why is this? Muslims kill while quoting their text at a much greater rate than Christians considering our text can be cherry picked just as easily as theirs, why is this?

Dear friend this is what he is saying. Cherry picked quotes from the Bible “WERE” used for the burning of people by Christians in the past. Christianity has since moved forward now and this is why these practices are outlawed.

There is nothing to say that similar outlawing may not occur with Islam as it learns to eliminate the practices of terrorism and the like…



.