John Hawkins has an interview up with Robert Spencer, the author of a new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran.
Labels: interesting books
posted by Helen at 1:35 PM
Monday, October 26, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Kids and pop culture, men's issues and domestic vi...
- You can now grow a mustache to support Prostate Ca...
- Peter Schweizer at Big Government: Obama vs. the A...
- Obama to tax ICDs, pacemakers
- Is shouting the new spanking?
- Some good news...
- David Harsanyi: "...if this administration can't ...
- Is modern man a wimp?
- Would you show up to support prostate cancer?
- How important is charisma?
13 Comments:
I recently read the Koran and did a post about my overall impressions and some of the interesting verses.
All you cryptofascist neo-nazi conservative racist teabaggers are BANNED!!! Do you hear me, BANNED!!
This is MY internet, and I am not letting it be taken over by a far-right wing Belgian nativist bigot political party...thingy. Or something.
Emperor Charles "Chuckie" Johnson I, imperial lord of the innertubes.
it is healthy to realise that the arguements and debates amongst priests of any of the abrhamic faiths dissipates util they are met with countering arguements.
the game of religious dogma is a pastime for those who walk the stone hallways of the monastary or church.
when the discussion hits the streets then the fun begins.
mohammad was a desert tribal chieftian who raped and pillaged his way across the desert. his excuse was that he heard the word of god tell him to do those things.
we just locked charlie manson up.
Dear Doctor
over 50% of your fellow americans support, believe in abrahamic faiths of this or that type. Are they, a majority, nutty?
it`s kind of scary to think that in a modern technological society that there is the potential for a group of people to fight hard for a belief, if pushed into a strong enough debate with a similar group who disagree with doctrine.
remember a comment made by one of our leaders recently about the crusades?
you tell me fred.
The term "Abrahamic faith" is a red herring, introduced to suggest a degree of commonality that in point of fact never has existed. This is a part of Political Correctness, but it is a lie.
Jews, and through them, Christians, are descended his legitimate son, Isaac, son of Sarah. This was the son born of God's promise to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, the fulfillment of God's commitment to them for their previous act of faith.
The Arabs, leading to the muzlims, are descended from the illegitmate son Ishmael, the son of Hagar, the slave girl, born strictly of the flesh, a bastard. Hagar and Ishmael were sent away from the family camp, they were put out and forced to live away because they were causing trouble and they were not truly part of the family of Abraham.
Thus the idea of "Abrahamic faiths" is phony to the core; there has never been this presumed degree of commonality. Ishmael and his descendants are, and forever will be, separated from those of Isaac. This does not mean that they must be at war, but do not pretend that they are all one big, happy family! It just is not so.
"Ishmael and his descendants are, and forever will be, separated from those of Isaac. This does not mean that they must be at war,"
Correct history, but I disagree with your last conclusion. The same scripture which provides your history proclaims that their will be rancor and war between these two peoples until Christ returns.
So far, so accurate.
Trey
and when the big y`un we`ll be fighting to tack him up again.
dr.d, your calm disagreement goes to my point about nit-picking earlier. while on the one hand you are correct, you miss the point about faiths argueing points in law.
and it is those types of arguements that spill out into the street.
and make planes fly into buildings.
sorry..i meant to say, when the big y`un returns we`ll be fighting to tack him up again.
and the term big y`un is a scots term referring to a man of stature.
"...you miss the point about faiths argueing points in law."
Alistair, I am not arguing any law at all here. I am simply observing the recorded history. It is there for any one who can read to do so.
You said, "it is healthy to realise that the arguements and debates amongst priests of any of the abrhamic faiths dissipates util they are met with countering arguements."
What do you mean when you say that an argument dissipates until some other event occurs? How does an argument dissipate? That is not very clear. Would you care to make some sense out of that?
dr.d, an arguement dissipates within any discussion when the positions of the members are clarified and positions are taken, unless one person or office wants the other to change thier mind.
when one person, or offices, position is pushed unduely on another then the conflict will continue until the net energy within the system is consumed.
this is true of marriages, friendships, bureaucracies or governments.
when i used the term law, i was referring to the game-rules of bureaucracies known as religions.
doctrines, if you will.
conflicts amongst religions and within religions cause arguements to ensue.
there are many groups of priests within the catholic church for instance, some of which hold beliefs which are heresy to the church it`s self. the church tolerates the heresy as a matter of politics.
jesuits, benedictines, corpus dei as examples hold beliefs that set them apart from eachother and have done for centuries.
the templars on the other hand were a different matter.
however, when different religions conflict there is less political pressure to keep the peace.
catholics and protestants still kill eachother in modern technological society. a celtic rangers game in glasgow is a ritualised battle not unlike that at stirling castle some centuries ago.
and muslims and christians are gagging to get at eachother`s throats as i type.
as the bishop of boston pointed out not long after 9/11, " there is only one force on the face of the planet that would cause planes to fly into buildings that way".
i`m paraphrasing part of his retirement statement as he stated it in a pbs interview.
Alistair, sometimes, you completely crack me up! For a man who claims to (almost) have a doctoral degree, you say the funniest things!s
"jesuits, benedictines, corpus dei as examples hold beliefs that set them apart from eachother and have done for centuries.
the templars on the other hand were a different matter."
Take "corpus dei" for example. Translated literally, this would be "the Body of God," not a likely name for a group of Christians as it would constitute blasphemy. What you almost surely meant was Opus Dei, which is the "Work of God," quite a different matter. Sometime before you finish that doctoral degree, you really should try to learn at least a smattering of Latin. It helps with the understanding of Western culture, and it is useful in everyday discourse.
You say that Jesuits, Benedictines, and Opus Dei hold beliefs that set them apart from each other. That is only a half truth. They are all Roman Catholics, they all practice the same basic faith, they are cordial to one another. You don't see Benedictines making war on Jesuits or vice versa, nor do you see the OD folks fighting with the rest of the RC Church. You are looking at this from the outside, it seems, with no understanding of what the small differences are. You are making much of little.
Then you say, "the templars on the other hand were a different matter." What ever on earth do you mean by that? The history of the Knights Templar is pretty well recorded, so what you mean by "a different matter" is not clear. You shoot from the hip without saying very much so often that makes it humorous, coming from such a highly educated man, that can also lift 400 lbs.
ok, i typed in error. i was in fact referring to opus dei. the work of god.
my point was that those within the catholic faith, though sometimes with heretical beliefs, would get along. it is those from different faiths that will fight to the death.
a fact that you fail to acknowledge, prefering to pick at nits.
the templars were burned at the stake for money and power. that which the catholic church claimed dominion over. my inference failed you, obviously.
and maybe my typing of corpus dei was more freudian than accidental, as i believe we are all of one thing. the school where i am getting my doctorate is based on that belief by the way, so of course i would reside well outside of the universal church, seeing thier behaviour mostly political throughout history, when they weren`t being plainly sadistic and homocidal.
you have made no comment regarding the bishop of boston`s observation either....
..too busy looking for possible errors.
shame you missed the dialog.
Post a Comment
<< Home