J
JackyB
Guest
Thanks for this:thumbsup:
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Please read post # 60 and 61 for your answer. God bless!!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I have an audio version of one of his books. His points are very well articulated, and he is constantly providing a reference to either the Qur’an, the Hadith, or to some other historic Islamic literature for every point that he makes about Islam. In my opinion, his ability to do this makes him a credible expert. When I read some reviews of his books on Amazon, none of the comments by those who were against him and who gave him only 1 star out of 5 could say what specific thing he said that was actually not the truth. If those who are against him can’t find error in what he says then what he says is likely the truth.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-There is one Catholic church and at least 5 Protestant churches in the town I live in. All of them can cite Scripture to “prove” their particular faith teaches what Christ really taught us. Being able to give a reference to Scripture, the Quran, the Hadiths, or other Islamic literature does not equate to the point being made is the truth.
-“If those who are against him can’t find error in what he says then what he says is likely the truth” is really the same as “If you can’t prove God exists, He doesn’t.” Additionally, your argument about the reviews is based on the assumption that the reviewers had enough knowledge of Islam to point out the flaws in Spencer’s argument.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Either way so is yours, supported by another author, which the only ones who could speak on him are those who read his books. Course less I wanted to discredit his work without reading him based on the opinion of others.
The Catholic endorsement is an informed opinion. Where are the documented informed Catholic opinions opposing Spencer? The debate is in the context/content of the books.
H
Hail_Linus
Guest
I’ve read this book as well as the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.” They are well written. I do like to verify what I read and I so far I have not found any lies in his books,
In fact because I have read these two books I was not surprised the Syrian Rebels or forcing, wherever possible, Syrian Christians to live in a state of Dhimmitude and pay the Jyzia tax (protection money). Nor is it a surprise to me that the Syrian Christians are forbidden to repair their churches. (Please do not take this to mean I think the tyrant Assad is a wonderful guy).
Check out this link: cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/meast/syria-raqqa-isis-christians/index.html
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Here resides the issue, why do I want to compare Dawkins whom I would be reduced to admitting I know very little about? Better to admit I know little about him and suggest an alternative understanding. Which is why I suggested Chesterton or Mohammed or Jesus Christ for that matter. Suppose we would have to agree there are people who are experts and less educated than Spencer. Can’t see how we can excuse them or that fact, as there are many?
D
dymphna57
Guest
Read Robert Spencer!
As previously stated, his writing speaks for itself. He is an expert on his topic.
I have also read Mr. Dawkins. I was not impressed. As he himself states in the “The God Delusion”’ he thinks theology a non-subject, a ridiculous exercise, an affront to intelligent academia that should be ridiculed off every university campus. He refuses to acknowledge it or study it’s arguments.
He is not an expert on Christianity.
As previously stated, his writing speaks for itself. He is an expert on his topic.
I have also read Mr. Dawkins. I was not impressed. As he himself states in the “The God Delusion”’ he thinks theology a non-subject, a ridiculous exercise, an affront to intelligent academia that should be ridiculed off every university campus. He refuses to acknowledge it or study it’s arguments.
He is not an expert on Christianity.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-The debate is if Mr. Spencer is an expert on Islam. You don’t actually need to read his works to determine this. Same way you don’t actually need your local mechanic to perform surgery on you to determine he isn’t qualified to be a doctor. Same way you don’t actually need the 18 year old working at McDonalds to due your taxes for you to determine that yeah they aren’t qualified to be a CPA.
-Same argument as mine? Please show me where I urged the usage of a random person regardless of their qualifications to base a classification of Mr. Spencer being an expert or not on. I’ve seen you try to use random people regardless of their qualifications to claim he is an expert, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t.
-The Catholic Church has endorsed Mr. Spencer as an expert on Islam? Please cite.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Thanks for the non-answer. It’s rather clear from your comments on this thread that of the two the only one you, or anyone else on here, seems to disagree with me on not being an expert is Mr. Dawkins.
As for your examples- Muhammad wasn’t an expert on God- hence the creation of Islam versus him becoming a Catholic; Christ- doesn’t really apply given He is God; Chesterton- are you claiming he was an expert theologian or a good apologist? Big difference between the two and the required credentials.
P
pismopal
Guest
His credentials are impressive and my job is to determine if he speaks the truth…isn’t that the most important task? Lots of qualified people lie and some unqualified people are also just mistaken. He has written enough books on the subject that if he is lying or unqualified it certainly isn’t obvious to me. I don’t discount someone because I don’t agree with the message. I happen to agree with Spencer.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not according to the OP. Its about a book Spencer wrote, you didn’t read it. Now your suggesting you don’t need to read it to discuss it? Is this how you did book reports in school?
No need to, its just more distraction by you, I never said the Church. I said Catholic endorsement such as CAF among others. Sorry you missed that. A point you have no response for nor have. But…they read the book and are qualified?
You didn’t read the book, have no verifiable credentials, Not much to discuss but an opinion of a unknown voice from the web.
I’m sorry you still don’t see this, I thought it would help clarify for you I wasn’t the one discussing Dawkins, why would I? I think the good fellow above has read him.
Simple question did you read the book and what did you think of it. You can’t answer.
Simple question is CAF qualified to endorse Spencer? Why would you disagree with what they read when you didn’t read it? You think they shouldn’t endorse the book? I would have to think many members here are introduced to his work, here. Seems to me there are a few issues here.
I guess talking about Dawkins is the way of avoiding a simple truth here.
Dawkins is your random who has nothing to do with anything but your exercise in what I assume you think is logic. And why would I entertain what I really don’t know. but you “know” Spencers work on the other hand, and feel right at home discussing a book you didn’t read. Not one, none. You read an introduction and what else?
Its a simple thread with a simple question which doesn’t need the philosophy dept for an answer. What individuals I added such as CAF… is endorsement by Catholics, which as I said is probably how most here came upon the book. And no-one introduced expert but you. Why does Spencer need to live up to your expectations? He seems to be doing fine.
If you don’t like him that’s fine and your entitled to your “OPINION” but thats all you have. I don’t see the argument nor why anyone needs to have it.
Mohammed was a prophet of God.
Jesus Christ was a prophet to Islam
and Mohammed had no education or wrote a word and dictated the Quran.
You don’t see how your merely giving an opinion here?
Chesterton was a Journalist, Novelist, Essayist. Chesterton was educated at St Paul’s School. He attended the Slade School of Art in order to become an illustrator. The Slade is a department of University College London, where he also took classes in literature, but he did not complete a degree in either subject.
What makes him an expert in your opinion on Christianity.
Is he qualified? Apparently so.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I agree. The only way to judge Mr. Spencer is to read his books and see if one can find error. The fact that his critics are typically those who haven’t read his books and who resort to personal attacks against him or his credentials without being able to show how anything specific he has said is in error tells me that his critics are the ones who are in error.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Please see this thread- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=869251
M
manualman
Guest
The problem with Spencer’s work is not necessarily that he’s wrong or dishonest, but that he’s incendiary.
From past arguments, I think I recall that oldcatholicguy has spent some rather considerable time in Islamic countries, possibly armed and dangerous at the time (am I remembering correctly or confusing you with another?). That’s a factor to consider here and a service for which he is due honor.
But it’s ALSO important to make the critical distinction between what the majority of muslims are actually like and what the principles of Islam teach. It’s been my experience that folks like oldcatholicguy (OCG) who have actually and personally known significant numbers of real muslims react angrily to suggestions that there are fundamentally dangerous and violent precepts built into the very essence of Islamic teaching. They feel that such criticism unfairly stereotypes all muslims and that stereotype conflicts with the actual, genuine flesh and blood muslims they’ve known. So they cry foul, and understandably so!
But criticizing Islam is not necessarily criticizing all muslims. We catholics know all too well that the majority of catholics don’t live perfectly in accordance with catholic teaching. In our case, the good, but fallen human nature results in our failing to live according to the example and call of Christ. In the case of muslims, their fallen but still GOOD nature leads them to, over time, concoct alternate explanations for some of Muhammed’s more barbaric actions and teachings.
But the hard fact remains that a religious system that relies on the goodness of man to trump the failures of the supposedly impeccable religious founder is profoundly inferior to a religion based on perfection Himself, even though its adherents are famously bad at living up to that example and call.
Spencer rightly points out much that is despicable and dangerous in Islam, but fails to adequately remind listeners often enough or powerfully enough that muslims are PEOPLE first, not mere religious robots. In that failure, he makes of himself too easy a target for those who want to paint him as a hate-monger. He’s really not and he really is correct that Islamic ideology is a major threat to human civilization on Earth. Ironically, humanity’s best bet for getting through this crisis is for the “cafeteria muslims” to triumph over those who would model themselves strictly according to the example and teaching of Muhammed.
Another wise poster (real name Edwin, forget his CAF name) previously challenged me not to call muslims who rationalize away Muhammed’s objectionable behaviors “cafeteria muslims” since those aspects of Islam aren’t real revelation anyways, so it is not any sort of real heterodoxy for muslims to move away from such philosophies and behaviors. He has a point, but I still maintain that it’s useful to recognize that Islam has a serious problem in that it must find creative ways to avoid simply encouraging its followers from simply emulating Muhammed! It’s a real question to be dealt with in terms of immigration policy and state/government relations in an era of geographic mixing of cultures and peoples. How much of an Islamic population does it take before there are enough Muhammedan ‘purists’ (for lack of a better word) to “do a Lebanon” on a country? We’d better figure that out before it’s too late.
I think the leftist elite is not concerned about Islam largely because they are SO sure of their assumption the religion in general is obsolete and irrelevant and will fade away in another couple of generations. Just smile and nod at any kooks who still arrange their lives by religious ideas and wait for them to die off. (The opposite is actually true, of course. It’s the secularists who have no babies - another topic…) Those of us who consider religion to be the primary driver of the character of a civilization are understandably more concerned!
Benedict XVI posed a much gentler challenge to Islam and to muslims in his Regensburg address and the reaction in a not-small portion of the Islamic world was rather telling, no? No one can reasonably accuse B16 of being polemic on the matter. I’d hope that Spencer would adopt a tone more like his in the future, even if at the cost of some book circulation.
From past arguments, I think I recall that oldcatholicguy has spent some rather considerable time in Islamic countries, possibly armed and dangerous at the time (am I remembering correctly or confusing you with another?). That’s a factor to consider here and a service for which he is due honor.
But it’s ALSO important to make the critical distinction between what the majority of muslims are actually like and what the principles of Islam teach. It’s been my experience that folks like oldcatholicguy (OCG) who have actually and personally known significant numbers of real muslims react angrily to suggestions that there are fundamentally dangerous and violent precepts built into the very essence of Islamic teaching. They feel that such criticism unfairly stereotypes all muslims and that stereotype conflicts with the actual, genuine flesh and blood muslims they’ve known. So they cry foul, and understandably so!
But criticizing Islam is not necessarily criticizing all muslims. We catholics know all too well that the majority of catholics don’t live perfectly in accordance with catholic teaching. In our case, the good, but fallen human nature results in our failing to live according to the example and call of Christ. In the case of muslims, their fallen but still GOOD nature leads them to, over time, concoct alternate explanations for some of Muhammed’s more barbaric actions and teachings.
But the hard fact remains that a religious system that relies on the goodness of man to trump the failures of the supposedly impeccable religious founder is profoundly inferior to a religion based on perfection Himself, even though its adherents are famously bad at living up to that example and call.
Spencer rightly points out much that is despicable and dangerous in Islam, but fails to adequately remind listeners often enough or powerfully enough that muslims are PEOPLE first, not mere religious robots. In that failure, he makes of himself too easy a target for those who want to paint him as a hate-monger. He’s really not and he really is correct that Islamic ideology is a major threat to human civilization on Earth. Ironically, humanity’s best bet for getting through this crisis is for the “cafeteria muslims” to triumph over those who would model themselves strictly according to the example and teaching of Muhammed.
Another wise poster (real name Edwin, forget his CAF name) previously challenged me not to call muslims who rationalize away Muhammed’s objectionable behaviors “cafeteria muslims” since those aspects of Islam aren’t real revelation anyways, so it is not any sort of real heterodoxy for muslims to move away from such philosophies and behaviors. He has a point, but I still maintain that it’s useful to recognize that Islam has a serious problem in that it must find creative ways to avoid simply encouraging its followers from simply emulating Muhammed! It’s a real question to be dealt with in terms of immigration policy and state/government relations in an era of geographic mixing of cultures and peoples. How much of an Islamic population does it take before there are enough Muhammedan ‘purists’ (for lack of a better word) to “do a Lebanon” on a country? We’d better figure that out before it’s too late.
I think the leftist elite is not concerned about Islam largely because they are SO sure of their assumption the religion in general is obsolete and irrelevant and will fade away in another couple of generations. Just smile and nod at any kooks who still arrange their lives by religious ideas and wait for them to die off. (The opposite is actually true, of course. It’s the secularists who have no babies - another topic…) Those of us who consider religion to be the primary driver of the character of a civilization are understandably more concerned!
Benedict XVI posed a much gentler challenge to Islam and to muslims in his Regensburg address and the reaction in a not-small portion of the Islamic world was rather telling, no? No one can reasonably accuse B16 of being polemic on the matter. I’d hope that Spencer would adopt a tone more like his in the future, even if at the cost of some book circulation.
- Status