“I am the way, the truth, and the life”
John 14:16
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason
for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,”
1 Peter 3:15
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.
Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”
Mathew 10:16
Christian
Apologetics
Sourcebook
• Book Summaries
• Web sites
• Summer School
• Lecture Outline
Particular emphasis on sources that
may not be well-known in the UK
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I6OYHRD112ZVX&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328789173&sr=1-1
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
Author: David Berlinski
Paperback: 256 pages
Publisher: Basic Books; Reprint edition (September 22, 2009)
David Berlinski holds a PhD from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in
France. He is the best-selling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. Berlinski writes
frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris, France.
Militant atheism is on the rise. In recent years Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have produced a steady
stream of best-selling books denigrating religious belief. These authors are merely the leading edge of a larger movement that includes much of the
scientific community.
In response, mathematician David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. The Devil’s Delusion is a
brilliant, incisive, and funny book that explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it is the ultimate touchstone for
understanding our world.
ReviewAny book by David Berlinski is bound to be fun. He is simply one of the most erudite writers in popular science and mathematics today. Those who
particularly like seeing sacred cows treated with a hint of sarcasm and irreverance will enjoy his writing on almost any subject, but this book,
attacking the "new atheism" as it does, is especially delightful if for no other reason than for how pompous writers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel
Dennett, and Christopher Hitchins are in their approach to this subject.
In brief, Berlinski's argument boils down to three main points: there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point that used
to be widely recognized and even extolled by writers like SJ Gould), most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most
rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a
new religion. I think Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident.
Claims, for example, that one "should" only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims. Indeed, I have
friends who resolutely insist that materialism is "all there is" while remaining blissfully unaware of the fact that such a statement could not arise from
strictly empirical observation.
Regarding the new atheist approach to Aquinas, Berlinski correctly notes that the critics of St. Thomas really do not understand his arguments.
Take for example the famous cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. In its simplest form, this argument takes the form of a syllogism.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause. Agnostic that he is, Berlinski
correctly notes that this is not actually an argument for God. It is an argument that the universe began to exist, meaning it required a cause.
Aquinas, of course, argued this cause was "God" and very specifically the God of the New Testament and Catholic Church. But one need not arrive
at this conclusion. It is possible that the universe simply goes on forever. One event causes another and so on back to infinity. (This was the
position of David Hume and it has been popular among the atheist set ever since.) Still, Berlinski asks, if we saw a row of dominoes falling, "would
we, without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling. Really?"[p. 69] Of course not. We fall back upon such reasoning only
when discussing God. But of course Hume's argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the
universe had a beginning, and much of cosmology since then has been an effort to try to explain away the obvious implications of this. (One should
also consult on this matter God and the Astronomers by another thoughtful agnostic, Robert Jastrow.) Scientists too, it seems, for all their vaunted
objectivity, often find their research agendas driven by their theological concerns.
But how does a "scientist" who also publicly promotes atheism respond to Aquinas and the rather stunning vindication of his argument by 20th
century science. Well, Dawkins for one simply asserts that Aquinas failed to consider the possibility that God was subject to infinite regress.
Amazing. As one reviewer put it, to call this argument sophomoric is an insult to sophomores, though he did not specify whether he was referring to
high school or college sophomores. Aquinas did not "assume" God was not subject to infinite regress. It was the conclusion of his argument that
infinite regress was not possible and Dawkins, should he want to refute such an argument, needs to address it directly, which of course he does
not.
And so it goes. Berlinski examines one argument for atheism after another and finds each wanting. The authors of these arguments are logically
inconsistent. They appeal to multiple universes and dimensions, a weak anthropic principle, physical laws that change from place to place coupled
with as yet undiscovered universal laws, and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam's Razor. They publicly stand by Darwin,
especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his
theory in many respects. Perhaps the highlight of the book for me was Berlinski's decision to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted
that Darwinism "misled science into a dead end" but "we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists .. in fighting against the
creationists."[p.197] Indeed. Any theory is better than an alternative that might imply God or some other non material cause.
But what would motivate a supposed scientist to make such outlandish claims? And it is here that Berlinski is at his dead level best. For some
scientists, and many more non-scientist, science has itself become a religion. And it is a religion with a very jealous God, who can have no other
Gods before Him. Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good
agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328788194&sr=1-1
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
Author: David Bentley Hart
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press (February 23, 2010)
David Bentley Hart is the author of several books, including In the Aftermath: Provocations and Laments and The Beauty of the Infinite: The
Aesthetics of Christian Truth. He lives in Providence, RI.
Currently it is fashionable to be devoutly undevout. Religion’s most passionate antagonists—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel
Dennett, Sam Harris, and others—have publishers competing eagerly to market their various denunciations of religion, monotheism, Christianity,
and Roman Catholicism. But contemporary antireligious polemics are based not only upon profound conceptual confusions but upon facile
simplifications of history or even outright historical ignorance: so contends David Bentley Hart in this bold correction of the distortions. One of the
most brilliant scholars of religion of our time, Hart provides a powerful antidote to the New Atheists’ misrepresentations of the Christian past,
bringing into focus the truth about the most radical revolution in Western history.
Hart outlines how Christianity transformed the ancient world in ways we may have forgotten: bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great
dignity on human beings, subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society, and elevating charity above all virtues. He then argues that what we
term the “Age of Reason” was in fact the beginning of the eclipse of reason’s authority as a cultural value. Hart closes the book in the present,
delineating the ominous consequences of the decline of Christendom in a culture that is built upon its moral and spiritual values.
Review#1Fascinating correction of "the narrative“
To begin with, the book should probably be titled "Atheist Delusions About Ancient History." This book is not so much a debate with our
Fashionable New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens -- "The Gang of Four?? :-) ) It is more a long, and endlessly fascinating, revisit
of Ancient History.
It may not be surprising to learn that there are at least two main narratives commonly provided for "The History of Western Civilization." Here they
are (very compressed):
Narrative #1: The Christian Version. "The world was lost in pagan immorality and darkness; man enslaved man and man dominated woman. Then,
with the Birth of Christ, came the Divine Light, and the world was forever transformed. The barbarian, knuckle-dragging rapists of Europe were
baptised and brought to Jesus, and the world got much, much better. Even today, there is no other known source of European civilization and we
reject it at our peril." One of the most popular novels of all time, "Quo Vadis," is in this narrative tradition.
Narrative #2: The Modernist Version. "We had the Glory of Greece and the Splendor of Rome, but alas a bunch of superstitious people completely
replaced the glories of Paganism with the knuckle-dragging ignorance of Blind Faith. The result was the Dark Ages, which only ended when Heroic
Forces restored the classics of Greece to a benighted Europe. Then came the Enlightenment, and Democracy, and all manner of good things,
once the Europeans cast off the shackles of Faith." Arthur C. Clarke and many other modern thinkers followed this narrative.
Whether you approve of my "summaries" or not, the point is that they are both tremendous oversimplifications and they are both therefore silly. If
you want to be a propagandist, OK, take one of those simple-minded narratives. But if you really want to understand the history of Western
Civilization, you need much more information.
One myth which has been repeated endlessly is that "Christian mobs destroyed the Library of Alexandria." This is completely false. In the first
place, there were two libraries, and there have been a number of "suspects" beginning with Caesar, but nobody really knows what happened. (A
man named Parsons wrote a whole book on the subject.) Another myth is that Christianity somehow destroyed the original Greek manuscripts of
Aristotle, and that we had to get them back from the Arabs, in Arabic. If this myth were true, how could we possibly have all of Aristotle in the
original Greek today? (The original Greek manuscripts were preserved in Byzantium.)
Things like this make the book under review invaluable, and there is one larger discussion I would like to share with you. It concerns Galileo, and
the Myth of Galileo -- apparently launched by the great hypocrite Brecht. Basically, all you need to know is that "everything you think you know
about Galileo is false," most particularly the idea that Galileo and other modern astronomers were engaged in some sort of running war with the
dogmatic Catholic Church. Not at all. In the end, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were engaged in a much larger and more difficult battle: they were
overturning the dead hand of Aristotle, which had stifled European science for thousands of years. Newton's final victory was the collapse of
Hellenistic "science" --- such as it was.
Well, I've either stirred up your interest, or I haven't! Back to Beethoven Op. 127. :-)
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q9F6NT0H252W&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300164297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328788194&sr=1-1
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
Author: David Bentley Hart
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press (February 23, 2010)
Review #2The only thing I dislike about Atheist Delusions is its title. A few other reviewers have pointed out that it seems to indicate the book will be a rebuttal
of atheist writers like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and the rest. It is not. Indeed, David Bentley Hart asserts that men like them are hardly worth
attention because of the infantile level on which they argue. What Hart does, instead, is provide a history lesson for the "fashionable enemies" of
Christianity.
The delusions in question, Hart says, are mostly historical ones. One will not discuss religion with an atheist long before history comes up. What of
the injustice of the Inquisition? The Crusades? The long-running war of religion against science? The Reformation and the subsequent wars of
religion? We hear constantly that religion (read: Christianity) is the most destructive force in human history. It is Hart's purpose to debunk the
delusions and historical fabrications that characterize historical arguments against Christianity.
The primary focus of Hart's book, hinted at in the subtitle, is the "Christian Revolution," those first, tense centuries AD when Christianity replaced
ancient paganism. The pagan era has been eulogized since in the Enlightenment as an era of peace and progress, of scientific advance that was
stymied by the bigoted, book-burning Christians of the "Dark Ages." Hart shows that, while we owe much to the ancient world, it was also an
irredeemably ugly place of slavery, infanticide, of callousness and hopeless reconciliation to the whims of cruel fate. Christianity, which he calls the
only true revolution in history, changed everything from the bottom up--and since Christianity was first accepted among the lower classes and
slaves, it changed everything quite literally from the bottom up.
Christians did not, Hart shows, burn the Library of Alexandria, or torture millions during the Inquisition, persecute Galileo, or wreak havoc across
Europe during the Reformation in the name of religion. Christianity gave the world hospitals, modern science, and the moral framework to regard all
life as worthy of life. In this coup de grace, Hart even points out that it would not even be possible for men like Dawkins and Hitchens to make their
arguments of justice and fairness were it not for the "Christian Revolution," that their concepts of justice and fairness are rooted not just in Western
Civilization but in Christianity itself.
The only way in which Atheist Delusions left me wanting was in a discussion of the Crusades. I am a military and medieval historian and so this
topic is near and dear to my heart, but Hart only gives the Crusades a paragraph or two at the beginning of one chapter. He claims that the
Crusades were not rooted in any Christian doctrine of just war--but they were, and were he to investigate further he would see the reasons the
Crusades were considered just. (To take up the slack on this topic, I recommend Thomas F. Madden's New Concise History of the Crusades.)
But that one niggling issue aside, Atheist Delusions is one of the best books I have ever read--and I do not say so lightly. I read through it as
quickly as I could and have thought about it daily ever since. I've found more food for thought, more intellectual challenge and stimulation
here than in any book I've read in years.
Highly recommended.
Review #3I will forgo the standard adjectives that came to mind when I read this book: brilliant, stunning, breathtaking. That is a given when one reads David
Bentley Hart. This book is a combination of alternative history, apologetics, and smash-mouth theology.
Hart claims the Christian faith represented a revolution in the story of humanity (ix). It shattered the pagan cosmology (115) and introduced new
categories of reality, the dimension of the human person for one. However, Hart's thesis is more subtle than that. He is not simply saying
"Christianity has done a lot of good to the world; therefore, you need to belive,"--that would be a variant of the genetic fallacy that Hart so
masterfully refutes. Rather, Christianity has its own telling of the story, a telling that reworks the categories of human existence within the
framework of its own story.
Over against the story is the narrative of modernity. Modernity's telos is that of freedom. Its highest ideal is putting trust in the absence of a
transcendental. Its freedom is nihilistic. Modernity's current defenders, and this is the first half of Hart's book, retell the Western story in a way to
demonize Christianity in their defense of modernity. Therefore, Hart meticulously shows how Christianity did not impede science (the chapter on
Galileo is hilarious), burn witches (the Inquisition, despite its bad moments, actually limited the bloodiness of the State's persecution of heretics), or
fight religious wars (the Crusades are actually a different case, worthy of a conversation but not under this topic).
One slight criticism: Given Hart's thesis of the Christian revolution of thought and humanity, its shattering and rebuilding of worlds, it is rather
surprising to see Hart end on so dismal a note. If the Christian Revolution is as powerful as he says and as I believe, and if the detractors of
Christianity are slightly moronic, as appears to be the case, does this not ultimately point to the triumph of the Christian narrative? Of course, the
word triumph needs to be carefully qualified.
Conclusion:
What many of Hart's readers might not realize with this book, but this is actually Hart's clearest piece of writing. Most of Hart's writing (*Beauty of
the Infinite*), while beautiful, is borderline incoherent. This book, on the other hand, is understandable.
EDIT: I've actually become more critical of this book in particular, and Hart in general over the past year. Hart is quite learned and makes a number
of pointed responses to the "New Atheist Detractors." And to be fair, if the New Atheists are going to ridicule Christianity in the most scathing of
terms, they need to be ready to play hardball. That being said, this book started well, had a nice historical review, but had one of the most lame
conclusions I've ever read. Imagine Beethoven's 9th ending with everyone humming "Kum-by-yah." I mean, there is a major dialectical tension in
this book. If Hart is correct on the Christian narrative, then how does his conclusion follow?!?
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Trust-Jesus-Questions-Pleasures/dp/0802489729/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3DV229UPKXRW8&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Trust-Jesus-Sterrett-Dave/dp/0802489729/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328785651&sr=1-1-fkmr0
Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears, Questions, and Pleasures
Author: Dave Sterrett
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Moody Publishers; New Edition edition (March 1, 2010)
DAVE STERRETT is a Christian evangelist for a new generation. He is a philosophy professor through Liberty University's online program, a prolife leader with 40 Days for Life, a frequent radio guest, and conference speaker. He has authored Why Trust Jesus? (Moody Publishers, 2010) and
coauthored with apologist Josh McDowell The Coffee House Chronicles (Moody Publishers, 2011) with titles, Is the Bible True...Really?, Who is
Jesus...Really?, Did the Resurrection Happen...Really?, and "O" God, A Dialogue on Truth and Oprah's Spirituality (WND Books, 2009). Sterrett
graduated from Southern Evangelical Seminary and is pursuing a second master's degree in Philosophy at the University of Dallas.
There is greater value to this book than you'll realize when you first read through it. You have to appreciate it for what it is. Sterrett's "Why Trust
Jesus?" is a popular level book that addresses many questions and objections in today's society for why one shouldn't trust Jesus. This is not a
piece of scholarship that warrants peer review. If you want scholastic answers and peer review, go to a journal or a book that focuses on that
specific objection you may have. If you want a general, but sufficient, response to one of these questions, than this is the book you need.
Intro. The Need for Trust-- The introduction is brief but important for to answer the books thesis (why one should trust Jesus). Sterrett examines
what it really means to "trust" someone and why it's so important. He lays out what type of people are generally trustworthy (truthful, reliable,
transparent, authentic, loving, faith, and forgiving) and then goes from there. Is this Jesus? This section really helps lay down the foundation to the
answer the book provides.
Ch. 1 So Many Spiritual Paths-- This chapter may be good from someone who is awestruck at postmodernism and/or leaning towards
universalism/inclusivism. Why do Christians seem so intolerant? They're so arrogant in saying Jesus is the only way. Why are people so intolerant
of the intolerant? All great questions. This chapter really lays down a worldview for Christianity, that is, there is absolute truth and Jesus is the only
way to heaven. As a student in academia myself, I rarely see genuine postmodernism, however, this is really important in high schools and for
people who interact outside of a classroom where the vein of social worldview plays its role.
Ch. 2 Not Sure God is Real-- Arguably, I would personally place this chapter at 1 instead of 2, but it's not that big of a deal. I have a particular
interest in natural theology and the arguments for the existence of God. I personally enjoyed reading this chapter and Sterrett sources, yet again,
are of trustworthy note. He opens with CS Lewis' testimony and gets in to miracles and his response (primarily to David Hume) is extremely brief
and to the point. Laying aside the Bible, Sterrett meets the secularist on his own terms, without using the Bible as an authority. The first major
argument presented is the argument from design and focused on both the biochemical design and the cosmological design closing with Antony
Flew's conversion to deism in response to the design argument. The second argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe, mores
specifically, the kalam cosmological argument. This one's my favorite. (If you're a young earth creationist, close your eyes for a page). I don't know
Sterrett's personal views on creation but I appreciate him using the kalam here and using it appropriately (I'm an old earther in case you were
wondering).
Ch. 3 Been Let Down Before-- This is really an emotional objection and Sterrett takes it for what it is and handles it appropriately. He focuses on
the promises of God and obeying His commandments.
Ch. 4 I'm Doing Fine Without Him-- This was a great chapter! It's easy to think you're okay without God but you're not. Take a look at yourself and
see what you need to fill your day. What does it take to satisfy you? Food? Money? Women/Men? Porn? Cars? Social status? The problem is with
taking pleasure and satisfaction in temporal pleasures is that it is temporal! It doesn't last! You will always need more and more and more. God is
the only satisfaction to anything you could ever need. If you need a commentary on this chapter, read the book of Ecclesiastes.
Ch. 5 Trust Myself-- This chapter really just focuses on trust Jesus as God and that we can't do it by ourselves and that Jesus sustains everything
there is. The section is brief and the main thesis is spirituality and truth in Jesus. There's a lot of focus on pantheism, which may take you off guard
for a second, but you'll get back on track.
Ch. 6 Who is the Real Jesus?-- This is a little more academically oriented, much like chapter 2. This is an evaluation of the historical Jesus and the
Jesus of faith (two distinctions only made in academia). He really focuses on the Scriptural presentation and representation of Jesus.
Ch. 7 Why Jesus Over Another Spiritual Leader?-- This chapter could have been combined with with chapter 1. Basically, Sterrett argues that
Jesus is the one and only true God. Sterrett answers the questions of who Jesus really was and is there good reason to trust that He existed and is
who He said He was.
Ch. 8 So Much Suffering-- This is important and must be taken seriously by the Christian. There's the intellectual objection because of evil and the
emotional. If the objection is intellectual go to a journal or book that discusses that. Sterrett discusses the emotional problem. I'm not denying there
is intellectual claims or arguments, but the emotional problem needs to be handled differently. It's handled by taking everything back to the cross of
Jesus and the suffering that He went to. It was because of our evil that Jesus suffered to redeem us from that very evil that put Him up there. This
is a somber yet joyful passage. If you don't know Dr. Gary Habermas, you need to read the last few pages of Habermas' chapter on suffering.
Ch. 9 Failure-- This chapter is encouraging. It nails down the whole nature of grace and when we fail, it's something that makes grace appreciated.
This will change your perspective of failure and your reaction to it. In the end, after a little pep talk here and there in the chapter, it's God's
forgiveness that allows you to trust Jesus because He won't fail you.
Sterrett has a legitimate amount of research done for his book with great sources. He cites some of the leading scholars (so if you have a
scholastic question, go to the endnote and use that source). I appreciate the book on the popular level where it is. I'm not going to use it in a
research paper but I would use it for a small group study. I'm actually having some young leaders read this book during the upcoming summer to
help them prepare spiritually and to help engage their mind a little bit. The book will get you thinking, it won't take you to all the answers, but it will
get you going. It's easy to read and relevant. I appreciate Sterrett's work in writing this book and I thank him for sharing it. Please buy this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801031141/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Legend-Historical-Reliability-Tradition/dp/0801031141/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786594&sr=1-1
Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
Author: Eddy and Boyd
Paperback: 480 pages
Publisher: Baker Academic (August 1, 2007)
Paul Rhodes Eddy (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Gregory A. Boyd (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Much New Testament scholarship of the last 200 years has seen fit to relegate the Jesus tradition as recorded in the Gospels to the realm of
fiction.
By drawing together recent scholarship from a variety of fields, including history, anthropology, ethnography, folklore, and New Testament studies,
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd show that the evidence actually supports--rather than refutes--the historical reliability of the Gospels and the
existence of Jesus.
“The set of respectable ways to argue that Jesus was legendary or never existed just got a whole lot smaller. Two highly qualified scholars with
impeccable credentials have granted the skeptics their wish: to subject the Jesus-myth arguments to critical scrutiny instead of simply dismissing
them as 'anti-God' or 'just so much rhetoric'. Maybe now people like Robert Price and Earl Doherty wish they hadn't. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy
conduct such a thorough demolition of the Jesus myth and make such a strong case for the general reliability of the Gospels that, unless dramatic
new discoveries come to light from the ancient world, I doubt anyone will be able on the available evidence to produce such an argument which
withstands their criticisms. Skeptics will no longer be able to simply refer to 'the writings of Robert Price and Earl Doherty' and act as if that settled
the issue of Christian origins. They will have to pass through Boyd and Eddy first…”
…”I will just make a few comments on the substance of the book, as the best word to describe it is 'exhaustive'. The authors try to address EVERY
issue or question which arises with respect to determining the historicity of the Gospels and wrestle with the views of many other scholars. Less
attention is given to the Jesus Seminar (whose views Boyd demolished in his Cynic Sage Or Son Of God?) and more to radical theorists such as
Doherty, Price, Barker, Weeden, et al. With the exception of the important (indeed, according to the authors, most important) middle section of the
book which deals with oral tradition, there is little new argumentation. Anyone who has read Meier, Sanders, Wright, Theissen, Dunn or Bauckham
on the historical Jesus will find much of the material familiar. Indeed, it becomes obvious that serious scholars HAVE engaged and refuted most of
the arguments which Jesus-mythers advance, but the lines of evidence are presented in piece-meal fashion in various parts of various books.
Where Boyd and Eddy excel is bringing all this material together and putting it in dialogue with explicit statements and arguments of the Jesusmythers.
It would be a mistake to think that this book is solely a defensive reply to the Jesus myth, however. The book also presents a constructive case for
the reliability of the Gospels, again drawing from the best results of the last two centuries of historical study of the New Testament. Reading this
book will acquaint you with all the critical tools and results one must be familiar with to offer a responsible historical assessment of these
documents. That is no small feat. Indeed, I know of no other book (even Dunn's massive Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1), to
which the authors are heavily indebted) that covers this amount of material. Add to this an important preliminary treatment of philosophical issues
surrounding the question of miracle and divine action, and you have a historical Jesus book unparalleled in the history of scholarship. Its
interdisciplinarity is its major strength.”
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328626487&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786675&sr=1-1
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
Author: Richard Bauckham
Paperback: 504 pages
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (September 22, 2008)
Richard Bauckham is professor of New Testament studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. A fellow of
both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he has also written Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World.
This momentous book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus. Noted
scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as anonymous community traditions,
asserting instead that they were transmitted in the names of the original eyewitnesses. Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, and recent
developments in the understanding of oral tradition. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory,
especially in cognitive psychology. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the historical Jesus and the Christ of
faith, proposing instead the Jesus of testimony as presented by the Gospels.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Habermas+Gary&x=15&y=20
Habermas is not well-known in the UK.
http://risenjesus.com/
Theologian Gives Top 10 Myths About the Resurrection By Alex Murashko , Christian Post Reporter, April 6, 2012|8:23 am
Did the disciples think they saw Jesus after his death on the cross as the result of hallucination or did they really see a resurrected Christ?
Theologian Mike Licona, leader of Risen Jesus ministries, gives an answer to this question in a short video that is part of the "Top 10 Myths about
the Resurrection" series that features his teachings on the subject. The ten video clips are available online through apologetics websites, including
Credo House Ministries.
"The most common myth pertaining to Jesus' resurrection is the earliest Christians had visions of Jesus exalted in heaven and the visions were
hallucinations," Licona told The Christian Post via email.
Most Christians "don't have a clue" how to not only explain the resurrection, but how to defend their Christian faith, he said.
"And we're paying a price for that in terms of our decreasing influence in Western culture," he continued. "There are numerous reasons for this state
of affairs. Perhaps the primary one is that most Christians don't require evidence for their faith or try not to dwell on anything that challenges it."
Licona's ministry is dedicated to making theology more accessible in order to deepen the faith of Christians.
Like us on Facebook
He starts the video about the hallucination myth by explaining that historians believe there were hallucinogens in the 1st century and there certainly
was wine. He then begins to build a case for the possibility of hallucination rhetorically – as if he was defending the position.
"So, maybe they were grief stricken. They took to the bottle, they took drugs. They experienced these grief hallucinations. They thought they were
appearances of Jesus, so they hallucinated and were convinced that he was raised from the dead," Licona says in the video.
Later in the video he says, "Now consider this. The reports we have say that not one, not two, but all 100 percent of Jesus disciples' experienced a
visual appearance of Jesus. This is unthinkable in terms of what we know about hallucinations. It also doesn't explain his appearance to Paul. Jesus
would have been the last person in the world that Paul would have wanted to see.
"So, the hallucination hypothesis suffers from a lot of problems. There are many more," he concluded. A DVD available on the ministry website
explains in further detail how the hallucination view is "utterly unsustainable."
Some of the other top 10 myths presented in the videos by Licona include subjects titled, "Contradictions in the Bible," "Pagan Parallels in the
Mystery Religions," and "Apparent Death Theory."
Licona's background includes being interviewed by Lee Strobel for his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appearing in Strobel's video The Case
for Christ. Books that he has authored or co-authored include, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Paul Meets
Muhammad, and The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical
Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature.
On the Web: http://risenjesus.com/
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/ten-myths-of-the-resurrection/
READ: AN APOLOGIST DISPELS THE NOTION THAT JESUS' RESURRECTION IS A LEGEND SPREAD DECADES AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION
http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/the-resurrection-of-jesus-an-unlikely-easter-conversation-9224/
http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/author/mikel-del-rosario/
http://blogs.christianpost.com/apologetics-guy/the-resurrection-of-jesus-an-unlikely-easter-conversation-9224/
The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation Early Reports of the Resurrection of Jesus
Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally
One Easter, a relative cornered me at a family reunion and wanted to talk about the
resurrection of Jesus. Let's just call her my dear Aunt Sally. Some people try to stay
away from politics and religion a parties. Not Aunt Sally. :-)
Jesus died in 30 A.D. and most scholars say Paul’s conversion happened about 2
years after that. Critics also believe that 3 years after this, Paul made a special
visit to Peter and James, where he discovered an early Christian creed that
reports the resurrection of Jesus--something that was around way before the New
Testament was even written.
Aunt Sally was Religious Studies major and she started off by telling me that Jesus
didn’t come back from the dead in any real sense--that the story of Jesus'
resurrection just emerged over decades after the crucifixion. She said that Jewish
peasants who missed Jesus and needed a Messiah figure basically made the whole
thing up--probably because it helped them feel better emotionally and things like
that.
In 1st Corinthians 15, scholars believe that Paul quoted an early creed This is how
Rabbis would pass on tradition. Creeds are kind of like the lyrics to a song that
you can’t get out of your head. They’re a way to preserve and memorize important
information. This creed says Jesus appeared to his disciples and others.
But she said something else, too. She said that it doesn't really matter if the
resurrection of Jesus actually happened. After all, can't we draw inspiration from a
story even if it’s not true?
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he
appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than
five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have
fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."
In this post, I'll share how you can respond to these two challenges:
It doesn't matter if Jesus really rose from the dead
The story of the resurrection of Jesus emerged over decades after the crucifixion
Does it really matter if the resurrection of Jesus is a total lie? I'll bet you've heard
this kind of question before: "Can't we draw inspiration from a story even if it’s not
true?"
Here’s the quote Paul used (1 Corinthians 15:3-7):
An agnostic historian, Gerd Ludemann, says this creed was being used within 2
years after the crucifixion. In fact, some very well-respected scholars are now
saying that the teaching of the Resurrection and the formulation of this creed
started in 30 A.D. For example, James D.G. Dunn--one of today’s leading biblical
scholars--says the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus and the formulation of this
creed began no later than 6 months after Jesus' crucifixion.
Jesus and the Truman Show
This reminds me of an old Jim Carry movie: “The Truman Show.” If you've seen the
film, you might remember that Truman basically lived the perfect life. But he had no
clue that he was part of this fantasy world that was made up by the people who
produced the Truman Show. Truman had no clue his view of the world was built on
a total lie.
So it's just not true that the story of Jesus' resurrection emerged over decades
after the crucifixion. It wasn't made up by Jewish peasants who missed Jesus and
needed a Messiah figure. Paul was a skeptic and an enemy of the church. He
didn't miss Jesus one bit. And it certainly didn't help him out emotionally when he
was persecuted and jailed for insisting that his testimony was true--that he was an
eyewitness of the risen Jesus.
Now I guess you could say, “What does it really matter?” I mean, he’s happy, right?
But Truman got suspicious and he tried to figure out what's going on. And I don't
blame him. I mean, what would you do? Wouldn’t you want to know if your best
friends were a bunch of fakes? If your idea of the world was based on a total lie? I
would. That’s because the truth matters--especially when we're talking about
spiritual stuff.
Not the Stuff of Legend
The apostle Paul thought so, too. Here's what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17
(ESV):
"The celebration of Jesus’ death by crucifixion from the very early days of the
Christian movement is, odd as it might seem, secure evidence that Jesus in fact
really did exist...Those who deny that Jesus ever even existed...typically claim that
he was invented by early Christians in imitation of pagan gods and demi-gods
who, like Jesus, but before him, were said to have died and risen again. This view
is wrong on all scores."
"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain...and your faith is in
vain...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
Paul wasn't a fan of drawing inspiration from fiction. He was convinced that if Jesus
didn't come back from the dead in any real sense, the entire faith tradition is a waste
of time--and that Christian religion is based on a total lie. As a Christian, I've got to
be OK with saying that if the resurrection of Jesus was faked, we're in the same
kind of spot that Truman was. We wouldn't have hope in anything real. In fact, we'd
be totally hopeless. Our worldview would be based on a total lie.
Is the resurrection of Jesus basically the stuff of legend, like Osiris and Isis? Is
Jesus just a fictional character in religious mythology? No way. Another agnostic
New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, was quoted by The Washington Post last
week:
For more on this, see Mary Jo Sharp's excellent post: The Jesus Myth Theory
How the Story Ends
You might consider sharing this illustration and idea with a skeptical family member
who asks something like, "Can't we draw inspiration from a story even if it’s not
true?" on Easter Sunday.
So let me tell you what happened in my conversation with Aunt Sally. Here's how
it ended: She said that the story of the resurrection of Jesus probably just
emerged over the decades from Jewish peasants with kind of an underdog
mentality--maybe people who missed Jesus or needed a Messiah figure. And it
helped them feel better emotionally and things like that.
It's interesting that virtually every critical scholar believes that 1 Corinthians is an
authentic letter of Paul. Even more, that Paul's conversion is a fact of history.
We talked about Paul for a bit and she finally ended up saying, “OK. I don’t know
what happened...But something happened.”
Paul and History
This is where a lot of our skeptical friends and family members may end up.
Because I really haven't found a plausible, naturalistic explanation that can
account for all of the historical facts in this case. But this event has huge
implications, not just for Christians, but for everyone.
Christians and non-Christian scholars see the historical importance of Paul's
writings. I was reminded of this last week, when a Jewish author named Amy-Jill
Levine (who teaches New Testament and Jewish studies at Vanderbilt University
Divinity School) was quoted on CNN's Belief Blog:
"The best source on the period for Jewish history other than (the first-century
historian) Josephus is the New Testament... It's one of those ironies of history that
the only Pharisee writing in the Second Temple period from whom we have records
is Paul of Tarsus."
Paul says he persecuted Christians, threw them in jail and had no problem with
people who killed Christians. But then, Paul suddenly became a Christian himself.
Paul's conversion is a fact of history. And it makes historians ask, "Why did
someone who hated Jesus' followers become a Christian all of a sudden?"
When people asked Paul himself, he said it was because he was convinced that he
had a real experience of the risen Jesus. He wrote this about in his letters to people
living in Corinth, Galatia and Philppi. Paul was originally a skeptic and an enemy of
the church--certainly no friend of Jesus. But he put himself in harm's way over and
over again just for saying that the resurrection of Jesus was true---that he actually
saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion.
Now, let's turn to Aunt Sally's second idea, that the story of the resurrection of
Jesus emerged over decades after the crucifixion. But what about this?
On Easter Sunday, we're not commemorating the resurrection of John Doe. We're
celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And given the context of his life, it
seems to say something about who he is and claims that he made.
See my post on the claims of Jesus: Did Jesus Say He Was God?
The Goal of Religious Studies
Aunt Sally was a Religious Studies major. I don't know where she heard some of
these things, but I do know that one of the stated goals of her program is to
"cultivate understanding of and respect for religious diversity and non-religious
perspectives." Reminds me of another quote from Levine, who emphasized
mutual respect on CNN's Belief Blog last week:
"Speaking personally as a Jew, if I want my neighbors to respect Judaism,
which means knowing something about Jewish history, scripture and tradition, I
owe my Christian neighbors the same courtesy. It's a matter of respect."
As a World Religion professor at a couple of universities, I believe students of
religion should do the hard work of fact-finding, seek to understand the source
material, and honestly investigate the historical facts surrounding Jesus'
resurrection reports with an open mind. As a Christian, I believe every Christian
needs to be prepared to talk about the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ---our
Living Hope.
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1
How Christianity Changed the World
Author: Alvin J. Schmidt
Paperback: 448 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (November 30, 2004)
Review #1In this well-documented volume of over 400 pages, Schmidt marshals the evidence for the transforming power of the Christian faith. He shows how
Jesus has the power to transform men, who in turn are able to transform society. And on every level, that is exactly what has happened. Several
specific examples can be mentioned.
In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in
almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the
Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women.
The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man's wife and children were little more than
slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he
treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament
documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually
outnumbered Christian men.
Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church's history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the
church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity.
Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But
the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the
church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided,
however, the institutonalisation of health care began in earnest.
For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital
was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, "Christian hospitals were the
world's first voluntary charitable institutions".
Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given
their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross.
Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and
Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions - it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first
believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of
both sexes.
Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the
concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian
educational endeavours.
As another example of the Christian influence, consider the issue of work and economic life. The Greeks and Romans had a very low view of
manual labour, and so it was mainly the slaves and lower classes that were forced to toil with their hands. The non-slave population lived chiefly for
personal pleasure. In these early cultures slaves usually greatly outnumbered freemen.
Thus there was no such thing as the dignity of labour in these cultures, and economic freedom was only for a select few. The early church changed
all this. Jesus of course was a carpenter's son. Paul was a tentmaker. And the early admonition, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" was taken
seriously by the early believers. Thus work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful.
The idea of labor as a calling, and the idea spoken by Jesus that the laborer is worthy of his wages, revolutionised the workplace. The dignity of
labor, the value of hard work, and the sense of vocation, soon changed the surrounding society; the development of a middle class being one of
the outcomes. The development of unions is another result. Indeed, the works of Weber and Tawney, among others, records the profound effect
the Protestant Reformation has had on work and modern capitalism.
Other impacts can be noted. The commandment against stealing of course redefined the concept of private property and property rights. And the
protection of workers and workers' rights also flows directly from the biblical worldview. The early unionists were Christians, and concerns for social
justice in the workplace and beyond derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Other great achievements might be mentioned. The Western political experience, including genuine democracy at all levels of society, equality,
human rights and various freedoms, all stem from the Christian religion, along with its Hebrew forebear. The rise of modern science has been
directly linked with the biblical understanding of the world. The many great achievements in art, literature and music also deserve mention. For
example, how much poorer would the world be without the Christian artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Brahms, Dante,
Milton, Bunyan, and countless others?
The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed,
there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of
this one man. Schmidt deserves an enormous amount of gratitude for this sterling collection of information and inspiration. Christians have made
many mistakes. But they have also achieved many great things, all because of the one whom they follow.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328783484&sr=8-1
How Christianity Changed the World
Author: Alvin J. Schmidt
Paperback: 448 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (November 30, 2004)
Alvin J. Schmidt (PhD, University of Nebraska) retired in 1999 as professor of sociology at Illinois College in Jacksonville, Illinois, where he still
lives. He is the author of several books, including The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West, and served as a consulting
editor for Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult.
Western civilization is becoming increasingly pluralistic, secularized, and biblically illiterate. Many people today have little sense of how their lives
have benefited from Christianity’s influence, often viewing the church with hostility or resentment. How Christianity Changed the World is a topically
arranged Christian history for Christians and non- Christians. Grounded in solid research and written in a popular style, this book is both a helpful
apologetic tool in talking with unbelievers and a source of evidence for why Christianity deserves credit for many of the humane, social, scientific,
and cultural advances in the Western world in the last two thousand years. Photographs, timelines, and charts enhance each chapter. This edition
features questions for reflection and discussion for each chapter.
Review #2In this book, Schmidt goes through many different areas of life (education, health care, etc.) and shows how they are a result of Christianity. For
example, we would not have universities or higher education without Christianity (esp. monks). Monks are also responsible for the transmission of
many (if not all) ancient texts (i.e. Plato and Aristotle among others).
In the area of hospitals, Christianity is once again the reason we have them. During Jesus earthly ministry the blind, lame, deaf, crippled, and
diseased were brought to Jesus, and he healed them. These miracles were one of the defining features of Jesus ministry, occurring constantly and
during his ministry. His apostles also carried on that tradition in the book of Acts, healing many as they spread the gospel message. Christians
throughout the ages have carried on this tradition in their own manner, with most not being blessed with the gift of miracle healings. This was done
through the introduction and rise of hospitals, which were built by Christians, not the pagans, because they wanted to follow in their Lord’s
footsteps in having compassion on the sick, giving whatever support they could to them in their illness. The pre-Christian world had a gaping void
when it came to medical aid. I think that this was because of their often fatalistic worldviews. If someone if fated to die, then why should they try to
interfere? As Dionysius says, the pagans threw the sick into the streets to die, and treated them with “utter contempt” as they lie dying.
In the Roman Empire, the above described behavior was the standard. Even the pagan emperor Julian lamented the lack of medical aid and
compassion for the sick and dying, through to the best of my knowledge he did nothing to improve the situation. The Romans tended to view
sickness as a sign of weakness, thus they looked down upon those who were sick. I think that something of this attitude can even be seen in the
apostles, for when Jesus came to heal a blind man, they questioned him as to whether the blind man or his parents had sinned. They assumed a
connection between sin and sickness. If this connection is made, then one would have to conclude that sickness is God’s judgment upon the
person who is sick. If this is the case, then if you are trying to help someone get well, you would then be attempting to thwart God’s plan, which was
to let hat person suffer or die.
Thankfully, early Christians were able to escape from this type of thinking. They saw that each person was redeemable and valuable to God, since
we are created in his image. They also did not have the fear of death which preoccupied many pagan cultures. They knew that death in this life
only led to better things in the coming life, so they were not afraid to put their health at risk by working with the sick and potentially contracting the
sicknesses that they were trying to heal.
The first recorded mention of one of these Christians who gave medical aid to the sick is Benjamin of Dijon, who nursed children and infants who
had been either been crippled or deformed due to failed abortions or being exposed and left to die by their parents.
When we think of medical aid, we usually think of doctor’s offices or hospitals. Strange as it may seem to us, these things did not exist in the
ancient world. Given the pagan’s fear of contracting sicknesses, and their fatalistic attitude toward them, they never established hospitals.
Christians, however, with their compassion towards the sick and lack of fear towards death, were able to do what the pagans could not. At the
council of Nicea it was decreed that Christians should establish a hospice in every city which had a cathedral.
The first real hospital was built in 369 by Basil, which housed physicians and nurses in it. A second was built in Fabiola, then a third was built in
Rome around 390. These hospitals brought the sick in off of the streets and cared for them. After this, hospitals began to spring up all over
Christendom. Chrysostom was instrumental in having them built all over the East, and Augustine did the same in the West. By the 6th century,
hospitals were “securely established” in Christendom, and they were ever further established by the Council of Orleans, who passed a canon
assuring the protection of hospitals. Hospitals soon began to be a part of monasteries, and many monks worked as nurses.
The Crusades, despite the terrible things done during them, also helped to advance the caring for the sick in the East. While the Western knights
were fighting in and near Jerusalem, they founded many hospitals, which gave aid to both Christians and Muslims during the wars.
As you can see, Christianity played a major role in the development of hospitals and the care for the sick. Whereas pagan cultures possessed
worldviews which did not support medical treatment centers, early Christians, with the example of Jesus and his apostles, their lack of fear for
death, and their Lord’s command to show kindness to the world, had a perfect worldview to support these hospitals. Contrary to many of the claims
of today’s critics, Christianity did make the world a better place.
These are just two of the many topics covered by Schmidt, which makes this a very worthwhile book to have. However, there is one major
weakness that I see in Schmidt's approach to this subject: he fails to mention that if Christianity had not ruled, something else would have, and
there is no real way to know that this other something would not have led to some of the same things that Christianity did. This is why he loses a
star and gets dropped to 4.
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1JUNW31B4FZY4&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/WHATS-SO-GREAT-ABOUT-CHRISTIANITY/dp/1414326017/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328786417&sr=1-1
Not well-known in the UK.
What's So Great about Christianity
Author: Dinesh D’Souza
Paperback: 368 pages
Publisher: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. (November 4, 2008)
In the fall of 2010 Dinesh D'Souza was named the President of The King's College, a Christian College located in the Empire State Building in
New York City. The mission of The King's College is to transform society by educating students so that they are prepared to shape and lead the
strategic institutions.
D'Souza brings to King's a distinguished 25 year career as a writer, scholar and intellectual. A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House,
D'Souza also served as an Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute as well as a Rishwain Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
Called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor's Business Daily, D'Souza quickly became a major influence on public
policy through his writings. Illiberal Education, his first book publicized the phenomenon of political correctness in America's colleges and
universities and was on the best seller list for 15 weeks. Subsequent best sellers, include Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an
Extraordinary Leader, The Virtue of Prosperity, Finding Values in an Age of Techno Affluence, What's So Great About America, Letters to a Young
Conservative and What's So Great About Christianity, and The Roots of Obama's Rage. His latest work, Godforsaken, responds to the problem of
evil and will be available March 1, 2012.
ReviewI found this book to be wonderfully refreshing. We live in a time when books promoting atheism and attacking religion (especially Christianity) are
best sellers and promoted nearly everywhere. This book stands up for Christianity, but in an intellectual and systematic way. D'Souza has not
provided a book of testimony or a scriptural defense of faith. He spends twenty-four chapters examining the arguments made against religion and
answers them using history, philosophy, and careful reasoning. Chapters 25 & 26 are the closest the author comes to promoting Christianity and
inviting you to examine its benefits. However, it is hardly an aggressive missionary approach.
D'Souza presents the basic material examining Christianity in seven parts (the eight being the last two chapters). The first is "The Future of
Christianity". The author lays out the current bump in popularity in militant atheism, but why it is really a long term loser. Despite atheism's best
efforts, outside narrow intellectual circles religion is growing in most places in the world. In particular, Christianity is growing the fastest of all and in
its future is bright. The second part looks at the historical rise and contributions of Christianity to Western Civilization and again demonstrates that
many popular notions are simply wrong or fabrications.
The third part looks at science as a wonderful tool and a very poor faith. I particularly loved the chapter correcting the popular notion that Galileo
was imprisoned by the Church because the Church was trying to suppress scientific truth. In fact, he was put under house arrest because he
published a book he had promised not to publish and insulted the pope in a very egregious way. However, Galileo's scientific truths were being
examined by the leading intellects of the day, who were in the Church, and while much was accepted, it did turn out that Galileo was wrong about
some details.
The fourth part examines the various arguments against the Church because of evolution and natural selection. D'Souza shows the evidence for
creation, that evolution per se says nothing against religion or faith, and how what is understood in the natural record comfortably corresponds to
religious teaching over the millennia. Yes, all human knowledge has expanded, but the core religious truths have not been overthrown.
Part five is an interesting examination of the limits of the reason that the atheists say overthrows faith. D'Souza makes an interesting use of Kant to
demonstrate a problem in Hume's thought. We also get treated to an interesting discussion of why miracles are reasonable and the skeptic's
wager. That is, if there really is nothing, one hasn't lost much by believing in God and yet if there is a God not believing in him presents a great
cost.
Part six looks at the notion of suffering as an argument against God and Christianity. The author corrects the notion that religion is responsible for
the great mass murders in history and exposes the lame attempts by atheists to try and keep their skirts clean by pushing Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and
Mao in the camp of believers.
Part seven spends several chapters examining the problem of morality for atheists, despite their great efforts to construct their own morality, the
notion of spirit, why so many find unbelief (even a passive unbelief) so appealing, and the problem that evil in the world presents to those who
believe in God. I think D'Souza does a good job with each topic.
I recommend this book to any Christian of any sect to get great information about the history, power, and strength of your history and faith. No, it is
not a replacement for your communion with the Spirit or the nourishment of your faith in the scriptures. However, it will help you deal with the
nagging frustrations you feel when you see Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and others on TV or read their words in articles and books. While they are
very confident in their faith (and that is exactly what atheism is at its core), most of what they are presenting is testimony rather than fact and sound
reasoning.
If you are in doubt about choosing between a search for faith or giving up and accepting materialism, I also urge you to read this book, but to also
seek to join yourself with a community of believers who can help you on your journey. My faith is strengthened by worshiping and living in faith with
others and yours probably will be, too.
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146256/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2MF3RAF6Z3BJ&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146256/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328790220&sr=1-1
The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
Author: Jonathan Riley-Smith
Paperback: 136 pages
Publisher: Columbia University Press; Reprint edition (May 10, 2011)
Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor Emeritus of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge, is the author of nine books, including The
Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c. 1050--1310; The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174--1277; What Were the
Crusades? fourth edition; The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading; The Crusades: A History, second edition; The First Crusaders, 1095--1131;
and Templars and Hospitallers as Professed Religious in the Holy Land.
------------------------------------------The Crusades were penitential war-pilgrimages fought in the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean, as well as in North Africa, Spain, Portugal,
Poland, the Baltic region, Hungary, the Balkans, and Western Europe. Beginning in the eleventh century and ending as late as the eighteenth, [at
the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war. –CSR]
these holy wars were waged against Muslims and other enemies of the Church, enlisting generations of laymen and laywomen to fight for the sake
of Christendom.
Crusading features prominently in today's religio-political hostilities, yet the perceptions of these wars held by Arab nationalists, pan-Islamists,
and many in the West have been deeply distorted by the language and imagery of nineteenth-century European imperialism. With this
book, Jonathan Riley-Smith returns to the actual story of the Crusades, explaining why and where they were fought and how deeply their
narratives and symbolism became embedded in popular Catholic thought and devotional life.
From this history, Riley-Smith traces the legacy of the Crusades into modern times, specifically within the attitudes of European imperialists and
colonialists and within the beliefs of twentieth-century Muslims. Europeans fashioned an interpretation of the Crusades from the writings of Walter
Scott and a French contemporary, Joseph-François Michaud. Scott portrayed Islamic societies as forward-thinking, while casting Christian
crusaders as culturally backward and often morally corrupt. Michaud, in contrast, glorified crusading, and his followers used its imagery to illuminate
imperial adventures.
These depictions have had a profound influence on contemporary Western opinion, as well as on Muslim attitudes toward their past and present.
Whether regarded as a valid expression of Christianity's divine enterprise or condemned as a weapon of empire, crusading has been a powerful
rhetorical tool for centuries. In order to understand the preoccupations of Islamist jihadis and the character of Western discourse on the Middle
East, Riley-Smith argues, we must understand how images of crusading were formed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
ReviewTHEY BORROWED OUR BAD IDEAS
Over the last five decades, Jonathan Riley-Smith has revolutionized--or, more appropriately, counter-revolutionized--the historical study of The
Crusades by demonstrating that they were not driven by avarice, greed, and imperialism but instead by piety, religious enthusiasm, a
sense of duty, and a genuinely fervent desire to liberate the Holy Lands and return them to Christian hands. Moreover, he showed that,
far from enriching themselves, the Crusaders suffered real personal expense and hardship in order to pursue what they saw as the will of
God in what he refers to as "penitential warfare." From what I've been able to find on-line, it appears that even most who are most reluctant to
let the Crusaders and Christianity off the hook have come to accept the validity of his view.
In these lectures, Mr. Riley-Smith provides a nice short rehearsal of his basic arguments in this regard. He then moves on to a discussion of how
Enlightenment opponents of Christianity, Romantic authors like Sir Walter Scott, and anti-Imperialists of the late 19th century produced
the historically warped version of the Crusades that came to be all too widely accepted in the West and that, tragically, was then adopted
by Islamic jihadis to fuel hatred of Christendom. In effect, many of the resentments of al Qaeda owe nothing to the actual history of the
interaction of Christianity and Islam in the Holy Lands and everything to the misrepresentations of, if not outright lies about, that history that have
been propounded in the West.
This slender book is a splendid corrective to the malignant view of the Crusades that remains a part of popular culture--like Ridley
Scott's Kingdom of Heaven--and a compelling rebuttal to those who claim that "they hate us" because of our own past actions. It's a must
read.
http://www.amazon.com/Virgins-What-And-Other-Essays/dp/1616141700/ref=pd_rhf_cr_shvl6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virgins-What-Other-Essays/dp/1616141700/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334307402&sr=8-1
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
Author: Ibn Warraq
Paperback: 544 pages
Publisher: Prometheus Books (April 27, 2010)
Ibn Warraq moves from strength to strength, July 29, 2011
By Geoff Puterbaugh (Chiang Mai, T. Suthep, A. Muang Thailand) - See all my reviews
"Ibn Warraq" has been one of my favorite authors ever since the publication of his groundbreaking "Why I am not a Muslim" --- especially with his
hilarious chapter "Wine, Pigs, and Homosexuality" which spelled out for the world what Muslims really think about these "taboo" things. To
summarize, Muslims from Tangier to Teheran blithely ignore the supposed taboos on wine and homosexuality, but they actually take the prohibition
against pork seriously.
I could only nod my head as I read this chapter, because I have spent years living in Tunisia and Iran. In Tunisia, while I was there, the country was
almost completely Francophone, so of course the sidewalk cafes sold beer, wine, and other liquors openly. Gay cruising in the evenings was simply
a fact of life, with the young men wearing sprigs of jasmine behind their ears. In Iran, getting blind drunk on vodka was a weekend ritual (not to
mention toking up on opium), and the gay cruising scene was just as intense.
However, both countries got very serious about pork! Go figure!
The new book contains startling information about the origins of the Koran, especially in the idea that much of the Koran may simply have been
imported from Syriac-speaking Christianity. (See Luxenberg's The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the
Language of the Koran for the details. And note that "Luxenberg" is a pen-name, designed to preserve the author's life. All of this jibes rather well
with the Iranian rumor that Muhammad spent the first forty years of his life as a Nestorian monk.)
Another ground-breaking book to consult is The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia--and How It Died
In any case, genuine research into the real origins of the Koran has just begun, and I guess it is not necessary to say that absolutely none of this
research is being done in Muslim countries.
The title essay, by the way, puts an enormous question-mark under the idea that Islamic martyrs are going to have a wild time with 72 virgins. The
word "virgins" has probably been mis-translated by generations of ignorant mullahs, and actually refers to "grapes" or "raisins."
An invaluable contribution by one of our literary heroes.
http://www.amazon.com/Sharia-versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=IONZ6RIPJ852L&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sharia-Versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3MPJHC21EV648&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=ILESVQYIBZOMH&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW
The mainstream media doesn't get it --- this book does March 27, 2005
By CB Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
I'm an expatriate American. My wife and I live in a Muslim neighborhood in the southern part of Thailand. We ourselves have never experienced a
scintilla of censure or even tension from our Muslim neighbors -- among whom we shop and with whom we interact every day, on the friendliest of
terms.
But from our house we can hear the daily sermons broadcast fom the local mosque (in the Thai language --- very few Muslims speak the Arabic of
the Q'uran) and what we hear is very disturbing. Local Muslims are told that all of Thailand (which is 75% Bhuddist) should become an Islamic state,
and that loyalty to the King and/or Prime Minister is disloyaly to Allah. This does not happen every day --- but it happens too often to ignore.
After the tsunami we found that several Muslim groups had used the disaster to evict Bhuddist beach vendors, preventing them from rebuilding their
businesses. The Muslims are organized around and encouraged by firebrands from the mosque --- the Bhuddists have no such support
organization, so are easy prey.
I have read nearly all of Robert Spencer's books and articles. I have followed his detailed arguments online with Muslim scholars --- he is clear,
reasoned, and precise. His books are more understated and balanced than his websites, which are ardent --- sometimes strident. Overall, his
writings have encouraged me to do a little research of my own -- and I believe he knows what he is talking about. Read this book if you want to
know what kind of future Islam has in mind for your children.
5.0 out of 5 stars Support from both sides, December 11, 2007
By Frank Nicodem (Fort Mill, SC United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Hardcover)
I've taken the time to read through all 45 (at this time) reviews of this book, and I discovered something quite fascinating. In essence, the vast
majority of the reviewers all provide support for this book -- and I'm not just referring to the "5-star" reviews, but the "1-star, what an idiot" reviews, as
well.
If you carefully read through the responses to this book, you'll note that almost all of the well-written, well-communicated reviews -- most from
obviously learned individuals -- give high praise to the book. And the 1-star reviewers' comments quite often are a) much shorter, b) blast away
mindlessly, with little support, and c) often have little more to say than "Oh yeah? Well, you're stupid!"
And I consider both of these to be quite insightful -- and very much in synch. (Kind of like listening to a calm, erudite, well-versed, well-spoken
scientist explaining his disbelief in UFOs and alien landings, then hearing redneck Bubba talk about when "me and Ethel was just standin' out in the
yard when this huge spaceship came and picked us right up off our feet", if you see my point.) To me, that's not a "one for, one against"; it's a "two
for".
One reviewer even had the lack of understanding to comment on how "tolerant" Islam was, because "look at all the Muslims living in America". They
can dress however they want, go to schools with the American children, work in American businesses, etc. Doesn't that show how tolerant Muslims
are? (No, fool; it shows how tolerant AMERICANS are. To actually support your point, let's ask the question about whether Americans living in
predominantly-Muslim countries can wear what they want, live as they want, believe what they want, etc. Women, try deplaning at the airport in
Tehran in shorts and a T-shirt!)
Also, note how many of those issuing diatribes against the book, do so against the author himself -- when he is really not much more than the
compiler of the information! Another case of a clear inability to comprehend the message.
Other critics have tried to use the "Yeah, but..." rebuttal, pointing out that other religions (the usual example is Christianity) have had their periods of
intolerance -- to the point of death -- as well. When I was little, my grandmother used to ask "If someone else does something wrong, does that
make it right for you?"
As a Christian, I DETEST those clearly-unChristian activities throughout history. There is nothing that can be said to excuse them away. They are
ungodly, and certanly not representative of true Christianity. However, I would certainly not try to use anyone else's mistakes as support for my own!
This book -- and the author's other books -- makes one thing clear: there is a dangerous movement in the world (and coming soon to a city near
you!) that is bringing a religion of intolerance and violence into our everyday lives. Examine it carefully, and be better prepared.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2O9IU8Z9MG9D3&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Myth-Islamic-Tolerance-Non-Muslims/dp/1591022495/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=ILESVQYIBZOMH&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW
The legacy of dhimmitude April 11, 2005
By Alyssa A. Lappen TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE Format:Hardcover
"A thing without a name escapes understanding," warns preeminent Islamic scholar Bat Ye'or of jihad and dhimmitude-the Islamic institutions of,
respectively, war and perpetual servitude imposed on conquered non-Muslim peoples. Both, Ye'or notes in an essay entitled "Historical Amnesia,"
are in the process of globalization.
This is not the benign economic globalization that most Westerners laud. Islamic jihad and dhimmitude trade in every available means-military,
political, technological and intellectual. And if the towering collection of 63 essays (including Ye'or's) contained in this new book is to be believed,
these specific Islamic processes are globalizing at a disturbingly rapid pace. The book, courageously assembled by Robert Spencer, provides
historical and contemporary profiles of jihad and dhimmitude.
In six sections, the book delineates how Islamic ideology has affected non-Muslims both historically and in the contemporary world. The first three
sections cover the myth vs. historical realities and Islamic law and practice regarding non-Muslims. The last three sections cover how the myth of
Islamic tolerance has affected contemporary geopolitics, power politics at the United Nations and, finally, academic and public discourse. It is Ibn
Warraq's forward and the latter 400 pages in which this book really shines. He explains:
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects; the life of its followers without
qualification; and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam
in any way. And I mean Islam, I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and 'Islamic fundamentalism' or Islamic terrorism'.
The September 11, 2001 murderers acted canonically. They followed Sharia, a collection of theoretical laws and ideals "that apply in any ideal
Muslim community." This body of regulations, based on divine authority, according to devout Muslims "must be accepted without criticism, without
doubts and questions." It sacrifices the individual's desires and good to those of the community.
That apostasy is not today mentioned in the legal codes of most Islamic countries, Warraq notes, hardly implies freedom of religion for Muslims in
those states; their penal codes are filled with Islamic laws. The myth of Islamic tolerance is defied by the massacre and extermination of the
Zoroastrians in Iran; the million Armenians in Turkey; the Buddhists and Hindus in India; the more than six thousand Jews in Fez, Morocco, in 1033;
hundreds of Jews killed in Cordoba between 1010 and 1013; the entire Jewish community of Granada in 1066; the Jews in Marrakesh in 1232; the
Jews of Tetuan, Morocco in 1790; the Jews of Baghdad in 1828; and so on ad nauseum.
Ironically, despite Islam's immutability, the myth evolved through the Western propensity to criticize its civilization. In 98 CE, Roman historian Tacitus
in Germania compared the noble simplicity of the Germans with the vices of contemporary Rome. Michele do Montaigne (1533-1592) in circa 1580
painted noble savages based on dubious secondhand information in order to condemn his own civilization.
Later writers substituted Islam for savages to condemn Christendom and materialism. In 1686-89, for example, Huguenot pastor Pierre Jurieu
exclaimed that Christians had spilt more blood on St. Bartholemew's Day than had the Saracens in all their persecutions of Christians. Of course,
Islam had claimed millions of lives-in 1399, Taimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. But during the 17th century, and later the Enlightenment,
writers perpetuated the "two ideal prototypes, the noble savage and the wise and urbane Oriental," substituting Turks for Muslims, and Islamic
tolerance for Turkish tolerance.
Actually, 18th century Turkey was no interfaith utopia. In 1758, a British ambassador noted that Sultan Mustafa III had non-Muslim Christians and
Jews executed for wearing banned clothing. In 1770, another ambassador reported that Greeks, Armenians and Jews seen outside their homes
after dark were hanged. In 1785, a third noted that Muslim mobs had dismantled churches after Christians had secretly repaired them.
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam," Bernard Lewis wrote in
1968 in the Encyclopedia of Islam. "The myth was invented in 19th century Europe as a reproach to Christians-and taken up by Muslims in our own
time as a reproach to Jews...."
Until the late 19th century, Jews in North Africa, Yemen and other oriental Muslim lands, were obliged to live isolated, in special quarters, and "were
constrained to wear distinctive clothing." They could not carry arms (including canes), and could not give sworn testimony in Muslim jurisdictions.
Even in 1968, an Egyptian sheikh explained at Cairo's Islamic University of al-Azhar, "the Jews... are dhimmis, people of obligation, who have
betrayed the covenant in conformity with which they have been accorded protection."
The International Institute of Islamic Thought was established in 1981 to Islamify Western history and thought. Western thinkers succumb to jihad
and dhimmitude when we refuse to identify the Turkish perpetration of Armenian genocide, or (conversely) present Andalusia-complete with
harems, eunuchs, and Christian slaves-"as a perfect model of multicultural societies for the West" to emulate in the 21st century.
Only testimony can counter the pathological trends. Thus, Walid Phares and Bat Ye'or tackle the forgotten tragedy of the Middle Eastern Christians10 to 12 million Egyptian Copts; 1.5 Lebanese Maronites, Orthodox, Melkites and others; 7 million Anglican, Protestant and Catholic southern
Sudanese Africans; 1 million Christian Syrians; 1 million Iraqi Assyrians, Nestorians, Chaldeans, and Jacobites; 500,000 Iranian Persian, Armenian
and Assyrian Christians; and perhaps 100,000 Christian Arab Palestinians. Patrick Sookhdeo and Mark Durie cover the rise of anti-Christian
persecutions in Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia since Sept. 11, 2001.
Western failure to recognize this subservient condition, much less its historical or contemporary results, has put democratic civilization in danger. All
this and much more in this book can help to turn the tide.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3JOB9LS6OQFB&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW
5.0 out of 5 stars The Truth can Hurt if you are a Muslim or on the far left, January 7, 2009
By Michael Fortner (Oklahoma) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Legacy Of Jihad: Islamic Holy War And The Fate Of Non-muslims (Hardcover)
Knowing one's history is important. The sources he includes are original sources, such as documents on Jihad written by Muslims! He includes
these to prove that Jihad was promoted throughout history as warfare against unbelievers, not merely an inner struggle as modern western Muslims
try to claim. The book is also highly academic and factual, compiled to counter the false idea pushed by the liberal left that Islam is actually a religion
of peace, when history shows it to be a religion of war. The difference between the history of other religions and Islam is that other religions do not
have warfare and murdering of unbelievers encoded in their doctrines of faith, whereas Islam does. So when modern times arrived with people
becoming more educated they were able to cease the distortion of their religion and go back to its origins which are peaceful, but the origins of
Islam is kiling and selling the women and children into slavery, which Muhammad himself did to his enemies. This is why the truth of the past must
be told, because those who do not know history will live it again.
One of the most fascinating books that I have ever read, November 24, 2008
By Kurt A. Johnson (North-Central Illinois, USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER) (VINE VOICE) (TOP 100 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Paperback)
The politically correct demand that we all recognize Islam as a "religion of peace" has a strangely surreal feel to it. In this book, we find out why that
is. This book is a large and in-depth collection of articles on Jihad and the Islamic ways of war and peace. Drawing from many source, Islamic and
Western, historical and modern, theoretical and actual eyewitness, the articles show just what Jihad means, both to those who wage it, and those
upon whom it is waged.
I must say, this is one of the most fascinating books that I have ever read. The many articles are wonderfully eye-opening, and I found the book to
be a great answer to the fuzzy-minded look at Islam that is portrayed within the Western media. If you want to really understand Islam and Jihad,
and not just listen to half-baked and ill-informed talking heads (Left, Right, or whatever), then get this book. If there is one book that I would say that
you must read, it is this book. I give it my highest recommendations.
Comprehensive, treatment of military Jihad and it's relationship to slavery September 18, 2006
By Donald N. Anderson
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
This book is a very comprehensive treatment of the unique Islamic phenomena of Jihad (often called the 6th pillar of Islam). The book is very heavily
footnoted and will be a guide for scholars for many years.
It is clear that although there is a personal dimension to Jihad, the portion emphasizing violent raiding, war, and subjection of other people has been
a major activity of Muslims since the 620's and continues today. Any description of Islam as the religion of peace only refers to relations between
Muslims. (Even there it has seldom been peaceful). As for a Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and any other "non-believers" it has
been an unending source of forced conversion, murder, rape, genocide, and slavery.
Even before an areas occupation and rule by Muslims, raids for booty and slaves might be an annual occurrence. In the area of AfghanistanPakistan-India these raids depopulated areas, destroyed the culture, and impoverished the survivors for a period of 500 years. The Muslins then
took over and governed much of the area for another 500 years. The intense hate between Hindus and Muslims has very long roots and ample
justification.
The area now dominated by Islam was once over 90% Christian and Zoroastrian, now these two faiths comprise about 1% of the population in that
area. How did that happen? Bostom and the other authors provide the answer and it sure wasn't preaching, convincing and converting.
In addition to major sections by Bostom there are sections by 20 other major contributors and historical writings by a number of Muslim writers
making up 40 separate sections. A number of items are translated into English for the first time in this book.
I heartily recommend this book to anyone who has any doubts about the motivations of the Islamic Jihadists we now face.
It is apparent that the usual descriptions of the Western Crusades into the Holy land as violent, cruel and bloody may be accurate, but they were of
such trivial magnitude as to be described as mere pinpricks against the long tide of bloody conquest and enslavement that has been Islamic Jihad.
It took me at least 4 times as long to read as the usual non-fiction, but I consider it to be one of the most essential in the long list of books one must
read to become familiar with Islam.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2HXW3DLLG1YOT&colid=1ZE5221N27ECV
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3JOB9LS6OQFB&colid=37R30KCRUJTNW
Startlingly complete August 24, 2005
By Alyssa A. Lappen TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
The politically correct would have it that Islam is a religion of peace, but in this far-ranging collection of Muslim and non-Muslim eyewitness
accounts, theological treatises by great Muslim scholars and jurists throughout history and historical surveys of superb historians, Islam has in fact
practiced a grisly jihad campaign against non-Muslims from its earliest days, in the hope of satisfying the Prophet Mohammed's end goal---forcing
the "one true faith" upon the entire world.
In 759 pages, divided into eight parts, Dr. Andrew Bostom has provided a fantastic compendium of historical surveys; jihad literature; classical
Muslim scholarly treatises; historical overviews from important 20th century historians; foldout, color-coded maps; eyewitness accounts of jihad
campaigns from the Near East, Asia Minor, Europe and the Indian subcontinent; historical and contemporary accounts of jihad slavery; and Muslim
and non-Muslim chronicles and eyewitness accounts of jihad campaigns.
It is hard, after viewing these compelling accounts and histories, to continue to believe that radical Islamists are in fact all that radical. For Islam, at
its core, seems to be a faith bent upon the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.
In part two, Bostom collects many jihadist teachings in the Qur'an, for example, Qur'an chapter 9, verse 29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor
the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the
people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." These teachings fill all of two pages in the text.
But Bostom does not stop there. The third chapter is devoted to classical and modern teachings of Qur'anic commentators on Chapter 9, verse 29.
Al-Suyuti (d. 1505 CE), for example, writes "Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless
him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g. Wine] nor embrace the true faith [which
is firm and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and
Christians] until they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (l'an yadinl) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam's rule."
Also commenting on the Qur'anic chapter 9, verse 29 are al-Zamakshari (d. 1144), al Tabari (d. 923), al-Beidawi (d. 1286), Ibn Kathir (d. 1373),
Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966) and al-Azhar, al-Muntakhab Fii Tafsir al-Qur'aan al-Kariim, 1985. Let no one say that Bostom has taken these teachings out
of context, for the classical and contemporary commentators interpret the passage in precisely the same way as it appears.
Chapter 4 is then devoted to jihad in the Hadith, with commentary from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Part 3 presents the classical writings of Muslim theologians and jurists on jihad. This 110-page section spans the entire history of Islam, beginning
with commentators from the 8th century and continuing through the 20th century. Bostom has gleaned writings of Malik B. Anas (d. 795) from the
Muwata, as well as a 1915 Ottoman Fatwa.
He also includes several works translated into English for the first time. For example, Ibn Qudama (d. 1223), writes, "Legal war (jihad) is an
obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are
exempted." Almost everywhere in this text, the author is belligerent. "It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them
with mangonels [an engine that hurls missiles] and to attack them without declaring battle (du'a)."
Similarly, the renowned Sufi master al-Ghazali (d. 1111) writes (now in English for the first time), "One must go on jihad (i.e. Warlike razzias or raids)
at least once a year... one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children.
One may set fire to them and drown them." The marriages of slaves, al-Ghazali continues, are automatically "revoked. One may cut down their
trees.... One must destroy their useless books." This belies the notion that Sufism is peaceful.
Al-Hilli (d. 1277) appears for the first time in English on the traditions concerning the tax on certain infidels, who have not been enslaved or
murdered. And the Persian scholar Muhammad al-Amili (d. 1621) has been translated from Farsi concerning Jihad holy war: "Islamic holy war
against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax."
The 117-page Part 4 includes overviews of Jihad by important 20th century scholars, including Edmond Fagnan, on jihad according to the Malikite
school, Roger Arnaldez on the holy war according to Ibn Hazm of Cordova, Clement Huart on the law of war, Nicolas P. Agnides, on the
classification of persons under Islamic law and John Ralph Willis on the jihad ideology of enslavement.
As Ibn Warraq notes in the forward to this monumental study of Islamic jurisprudence and prosecution of war, Dr. Bostom (a non-specialist from the
field of clinical medicine) is the first scholar to have had translated from Arabic into English the works of al-Bayadawi, al-Suyuti, al-Zamakhshari and
al-Tabari, as well as works by Sufi master al-Ghazali, Shiites al-Hilli and al-Amili. He also includes representatives from the four schools of Sunni
jurisprudence-Averroes and Ibn Khaldun (Maliki), Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Qudama (Hanbali), Shaybani (Hanafi), and al-Mawardi (Shaafi).
Ibn Warraq continues: Some contend that Dr. Bostom is right to expose history hitherto denied, but this was not the right historical moment to do so.
But, as Isaiah Berlin once noted, from the ideologue's willingness to suppress what he suspects to be true has flowed much evil.
--Alyssa A. Lappen
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161017061X?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=161017061
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335260725&sr=8-1
Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
Author: Robert Spencer
Publisher: Intercollegiate Studies Institute; 1 edition (April 23, 2012)
Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed? Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while
many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh
century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Many who hear about my new book Did Muhammad
Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins ask why it would matter whether or not Muhammad existed -- after all, a billion Muslims believe he
did, and they are not going to stop doing so because of some historical investigations. Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of
Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene.
These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam:
No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors
"Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims."
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of
"Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name, but
also as an honorific.
The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Casting into serious doubt that
standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century.
We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik.
Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. In the Abbasid period, biographical
material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125
years after the traditional date of his death.
The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of
political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist,
or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.
How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a
new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it
ever considered necessary to invent him?
Every empire of the day had a civic religion. The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian. Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian.
The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. The empire was
growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to
compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests. It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation
for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state.
Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its
prophet, and eventually its book. Stories about Muhammad began to circulate. A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive
expansionism. To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond
criticism.
This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion. Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with
God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers. Allah says in the Qur'an: "As
for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56).
Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29).
There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly
entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it. Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad
caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate.
This is not just academic speculation. The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an
understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the
origins of Islam. There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia
measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law
was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom. Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds.
If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change. But that will happen only if a sufficient number
of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the
Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Tolerance-Pluralism-Diversity/dp/0830827870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796204&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-about-Tolerance-Pluralism-Diversity/dp/0830827870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796787&sr=1-1
The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
Author: Brad Stetson and Joseph G. Conti
Paperback: 207 pages
Publisher: IVP Academic; Print On Demand Edition edition (February 28, 2005)
Brad Stetson (Ph.D., University of Southern California) has written widely on social and political topics. His previous books include The Silent
Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture (1996) and Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism (1998). He is a coauthor of
Challenging the Civil Rights Establishment (with Joseph G. Conti, Praeger Publishers, 1993) and Black and Right (with Joseph G. Conti and Stan
Faryna, Praeger Publishers, 1997). Stetson's articles have appeared in Christianity Today, First Things, The Los Angeles Times and several other
periodicals. He currently lectures in American politics at Azusa Pacific University and in rhetoric at Chapman University.
Joseph G. Conti earned a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics at the University of Southern California. A lecturer in religious studies at California
State University--Fullerton, he has also taught at the University of Southern California, Kansas City Community College (Kansas), Longwood
Community College (Kansas), Western Missouri State University, the University of San Francisco and California State University--Long Beach. He
is also a coauthor of Challenging the Civil Rights Establishment (with Brad Stetson, Praeger Publishers, 1993) and Black and Right (with Brad
Stetson and Stan Faryna, Praeger Publishers, 1997).
We all want to be tolerant. No one wants to be intolerant. But does that mean we have to accept all truth claims as true? Does this virtue rule out
having any strongly held moral convictions? In this book Brad Stetson and Joseph G. Conti explore the use and misuse of this important value in
academic circles and popular media. They note that the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of tolerance are often taken to be mutually exclusive, and it
ends with truth having to give way to tolerance. Stetson and Conti argue just the opposite: that true tolerance requires the pursuit of truth. In the
end they demonstrate that Christian conviction about religious truth provides the only secure basis for a tolerant society which promotes truth
seeking. Christians can contribute to civil debate without compromising their moral and spiritual convictions.
ReviewThe new tolerance is not worth tolerating
This book is about how a good concept - tolerance - has been redefined and subverted by the secular left. Tolerance, properly understood, is a
useful personal and social good. But stripped of its original meaning, it has become a weapon in the culture wars.
Tolerance originally meant being able to respect a person while disagreeing with their ideas, beliefs or behaviors. Today it has come to mean
accepting what your opponent says, believes or does. If someone today objects to something like abortion on demand or same-sex marriage, he or
she is labeled as intolerant, bigoted and narrow-minded.
Thus any person who now expresses an opinion or makes a moral critique which does not fit in with our politically correct culture is deemed to have
committed the gravest of sins: being intolerant. But as the authors show, the ability to exercise moral discernment and make critical evaluations is
at the heart of genuine democracy and the social good.
By demanding conformity to the values regime of the secular left, the goal posts in value making have been shifted. The authors show that the new
tolerance is closely aligned with moral relativism and the postmodern distrust of truth. But without true truth and moral absolutes, the entire concept
of tolerance becomes meaningless.
We can only tolerate something if we do not agree with it in the first place. We do not tolerate something we like or agree with. But if there is no
absolute truth, and moral values are simple subjective preferences, then convictions and beliefs become mere preferences and tastes. No one
needs to tolerate another person's preference for chocolate ice cream. No one needs to tolerate another person's taste for classical music.
If all beliefs and moral claims are mere matters of choice and preference, then tolerance no longer is necessary. If we accept the postmodern belief
that all truth is self-created, then no one has a right to challenge any belief, or make any moral judgment. In which case, we have nothing left to be
tolerant of.
Indeed, as the authors point out, the "belief in truth as subjectivity short-circuits discussion" and makes genuine social interaction impossible.
Tolerance only functions in a setting where real dialogue, debate and intellectual sparring is allowed to take place.
The authors show that the secular left has used the notion of tolerance to push their own agenda. The new relativists argue that believers who
insist on moral values are being intolerant and exclusive, yet they demand a whole set of their own moral absolutes, be it the right to abortion,
complete choice in all matters sexual, and so on. Thus in their appeal to moral relativism to silence the so-called religious right, they make their own
appeal to fundamental moral values: tolerance, neutrality, pluralism, etc. They want to have their cake (there are no moral absolutes) and eat it too
(their moral values should be absolutely adhered to).
Moreover, tolerance itself is not an absolute There are some things that we should not tolerate. It is neither tolerant nor civil to stand by while a
woman is raped or some crime is being committed. True tolerance means the making of moral judgments and sound evaluations.
The authors conclude by reminding us that the secular left has high-jacked the concept of tolerance to promote its own ideological agenda. They
seek not just to separate church from state, but religion from society. In the process, they are imposing their own secular values on the rest of
society, all in the name of tolerance. But as the authors document, often the most intolerant people today are those who shout loudest for
tolerance.
True tolerance is a virtue and should be practiced, both privately and publicly. But as the authors make clear, a new type of tolerance - really an
imposter - has subverted it, taking its place. The new tolerance is no tolerance at all, but a new form of totalitarianism. And we should not be
tolerant of that.
http://www.amazon.com/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334306091&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334307608&sr=1-1
Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Author John Kenneth Press
Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: Social Books (September 27, 2007)
Culturism Described, October 10, 2007 By John K. Press "Culturism Author www.culturism.us" (New York) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
Culturism (c'l-chì'r-'zì-'m) n. 1. A philosophy which holds that majority cultures have the right to define and defend themselves. 2. The philosophy,
science and art of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. The study of culturism.
Culturism is a political philosophy, art and science based upon the understanding that cultural diversity is real and important. Western culture
believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam does not. Western culture is based on individuals applying their
intelligence towards progressive and productive ends. Other cultures value tradition, festivals and large families. Culturism does not hold that any
culture is better or worse than any other. It does hold that all cultures, be they Islamic, Asian, Western, African, Latin American or other, have a
right to define and defend themselves. All cultures have a right to implement culturist policies. Western culturists hold that Western countries also
have a right and responsibility to implement culturist measures designed to perpetuate our unique and valuable cultural vision.
The book culturism starts by showing that the U.S. has a long tradition of culturism. Culturist dynamics in world history are then explored. The
chapter on anthropology shows just how wide diversity is and what we can expect to naturally emerge if we do not practice culturism. When we
realize how disgusting and broad diversity has been and is we are finally ready to move on to the chapter in which we define Western culture. The
excursion into natural sciences shows that culture has unique functions in primates like man. Furthermore, group survival and boundaries
preceding us demonstrate that culturism is not just a figment of man's imagination. The chapter on culturist psychology applies the dynamics we
discovered in nature to man and helps us know who we are and what we need to do. The last chapters try to pull Western philosophy back into its
traditional culturist mode, compare culturism to multiculturalism, and suggest culturist policies.
Overall, the book shows that culturism is a real and important dynamic in our world. It argues that Western nations need to be as culturist as other
nations. Finally, it argues that we can start in that direction immediately by identifying ourselves as culturists!
Culturism vs Multiculturism, February 2, 2008 By Anthony Alexander - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
When I first read of the idea of Culturism, it struck me like a bolt of lightning. Of course, everything made sense, here was a word and a concept
"Culturism" I had been struggling to define whenever my thoughts turned to multiculturalism.
"Multiculturalism robs us of the authority to protect our culture"
As I read brief passages from each chapter of the book, I couldn't help but keep repeating to myself, "of course, of course of course" it just all made
perfect sense.
JKP's book concerns itself to culturism in America but it's concepts can be applied universally.
Within the context of America, JKP identifies the origins of American Culturism as emerging from the Puritan ethic.
The first section on the Puritan ethic was a new concept to me.
Reading this section wasn't so much an "of course" experience as much as a steep learning curve It is an aspect of American history that I have not
much familiarity.
The Puritan theme is used to tie together the notion of Culturism and American culture.
JKP explains the ideas that gave birth to multiculturalism in anthropology. Margaret Mead has a lot to answer for.
So what is JKP getting at? Nothing less than the need to understand that our culture, are values are not self - evident as they may appear to us and
especially not to other cultures.
It is JKP's message that our culture needs to be defended if it is to survive.
Most significant is the western notion of Justice.
JKP uses many examples of practices of other cultures to drive home the point that there is no room in our culture for multiculturalism when
multiculturalism threatens the values that we take for granted.
The false notion that we have accepted in that all cultures are equal.
JKP points out the myth of the noble savage, invented by Rousseau. This myth has developed to include the belief that indigenous cultures were
caretakers of their environment whilst immigrant cultures destroyed and pillaged the environment.
Very much the same ideas are in the book The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery.
So the subtle message which JKP presents very gently, in a restrained voice is that western culture is under threat from Islamic culture.
The call to Culturism is to awaken us to the very qualities that make our culture unique and worthy of protecting. If we do not protect our culture
then we will inevitably lose what we cherish.
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.theocca.org/
http://www.theocca.org/course-overview
http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do/rzim-oxford-summer-school-2012-imageo-deo-dignified-degraded-or-redeemed
Contents
Outwitting Atheism
1. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
2. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
The Credibility of Jesus and His Resurrection
1. Why Trust Jesus?: An Honest Look at Doubts, Plans, Hurts, Desires, Fears,
Questions, and Pleasures
2. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition
3. Resurrection of Jesus Research - http://www.garyhabermas.com/
4. Resurrection of Jesus - http://risenjesus.com/
5. The Resurrection of Jesus: An Unlikely Easter Conversation
The Truth About Christianity
1. How Christianity Changed the World
2. What's So Great about Christianity
The Truth About Islam
1. The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
2. Virgins? What Virgins?
3. Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism
4. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims
5. The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
6. Slavery, Terrorism and Islam
7. Did Muhammad Exist?: an Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
The Costs of Political Correctness
1. The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars
2. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
Summer School Course
The Oxford Centre For Christian Apologetics http://www.theocca.org/
Oxford Summer School 2012 http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do
Lecture Outline
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87,
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87
5 Questions About the Bible That You Always Wanted to Ask: An Investigation in a Theological Safe
Space A series of seminars @ The American Bible Society, New York City, USA
These lectures represent a critical-evangelical (trust in faith but think things through anyway) response to the
claims that the Bible is not true because it is historically suspect. The term inerrancy (an awkward claim when
we have no autographs of the Bible) has enslaved us to defend a word rather than the true meaning of faith Can we trust the Bible? Can truth be transmitted only through records of historical fact? Or like the natural
sciences, have truth claims always been also expressed through parables, sagas, myths, stories and models of
reality? If the Christian faith is based on the trustworthiness of the Bible, then the veracity and integrity of the
Biblical message must withstand the challenges of thoughtful skepticism. We will examine 5 questions we ought
to feel comfortable asking without being either shouted down by the anxious faithful or despised by the
misinformed skeptic.
Lecture 1. Where Did the Bible Come From? (Oral & Textual Sources)
Have you ever wondered where the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the 80 books of the Catholic Bible come
from? Who wrote them and why did they do so? How did they know what to write? Are the written texts identical
to the oral traditions? This is a survey of the various sources from which the Christian scriptures arose. This
lecture also introduces the important issues that ultimately lead to an assessment on why anyone holds the
view that the Bible ought to be or ought not to be trusted. It is easy to make an unexamined decision to believe
in something but far more satisfying to know why one does so. We hope this series of lectures will initiate your
own quest.
Outline of Lecture 1
1. The Oral Traditions to the Modern Bibles (Roman, Protestant, Ethiopic, Syriac, Orthodox…). Who wrote
them and why did they do so? How did they know what to write? Are the written texts identical to the oral
traditions?
2. Old Testament:
a. The Origins of the Hebrew Bible (HB)
b. Early Jewish Scriptures, Types of HB
i. 22-book canon (Josephus, AD 37-100 & Jubilees 2:23-24)
ii. 24-book canon (4 Ezra 14:22-49, 2nd century AD & the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate baraita, Bava
Batra 14B-15A, AD 70-200)
iii. 23-book canon (David Noel Freedman’s thesis excludes Daniel, c. 5th century BC)
iv. Rabbinic Tradition (AD 90-550)
d. Jesus’ Scriptures & Early Christianity
e. The Masoretic Text (MT)
f. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)
3. New Testament
a. From Story to Scripture, from Scripture to Canon
b. Influence of the ‘Heretics’
c. Books, Texts & Translations
d. Collection & Citation of Christian Scriptures
i. Marcion
ii. Eusebius
iii. Muratorian Canons
iv. The Greek New Testament (GNT) Codex
e. The Septuagint (LXX) in the New Testament
4. Extra-Canonical Sources
a. Inter-Testamental Source
b. Apocryphal Sources (OT)
c. Pseudipagraphical Sources (OT & NT)
d. Gnostic sources
5. When did the Bibles become our Bible?
a. Athanasius, AD367
b. Council of Africa
c. Martin Luther
d. Council of Trent 1547
e. Modern Translations and Versions
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87
Lecture 2. Who Chose the Books of the Bible? (Composition, Collection & Criteria)
How did the books of the Bible get to be ‘canonized?’ Who chose them and by what authority do
we accept their choice? What were the tests conducted to assess the suitability of God’s Word
in human words? This is the story of how our Bible came to be.
Outline of Lecture 2
1. When did the Bibles become our Bible?
a. Old Testament (OT): AD 6th century
b. New Testament (NT): AD 4th-16th century
2. Criteria of Canonicity:
a. Ancient Criteria of Authoritative Canonicity
b. Modern Tests of Reliability
3. Inerrancy & Inspiration or Trustworthiness & Authority?
4. The Early Church & the OT
a. The Hebrew Scripture and Jesus,
b. The Torah and Jesus,
c. From Ritual to Spirit
5. Jesus as the true Canon
6. Is the biblical canon THE Word of God or A WORD from God
7. How to Understand a Word from God in Words of Man
8. By whose authority were the books selected?
a. Canonical Authorities
b. Authorities and Loyalties
9. Conclusion
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87
Lecture 3. What About the 'Lost Gospels'? (Other Christianities)
Many writers have written about the lost gospels and lost Christianities, suggesting that the current form survived after a
Darwinian struggle for supremacy. How do they know that and is this true? If there were multiple Christianities and more
than four gospels, how do we know we inherited the correct ones? What happened to these traditions of Christianity?
This is a survey of the other Christian faiths ignored by history.
In recent years, there has been much ink spilled over the issue of orthodoxy. Since the discoveries of ‘lost’ documents of
the early churches from 1945, various theories have arisen to suggest that the Bible we have, especially the Gospels
that survived in our modern Bibles, were not the only ones. Rather, they were the favorites of the ‘winners’ in the battle
for correct theology. Scholars such as Morton Smith, Elaine Pagels, Karen King and Bart Ehrman have written important
works claiming that since winners write history, a cloud of suspicion hangs over the form of Christianity that goes by that
name today. One of the most vocal thinkers who have responded to them is Darrell Bock. In this seminar, we shall
consider the arguments of Ehrman and Bock. We shall then consider a postfoundational approach to the challenges
raised by this question - What about the Lost Gospels?
Outline of Lecture 3
1. Were There Other Gospels? Bart Ehrman’s Theory
a. Ancient Discovery of a Forgery (Serapion and Gospel of Peter)
b. Ancient Forgery of a Discovery (Acts of Paul and Thecla)
c. Discovery of an Ancient Forgery (Gospel of Thomas)
d. Forgery of an Ancient Discovery (The Secret Gospel of Mark)
e. Winners and Losers (Can we trust the Winners?)
2. Beyond the Four Gospels & Gnosticism - Darrell Bock’s Response
a. Origin of Gnosticism
b. Diversity in Early Christianity
c. Historical Judgments
d. Walter Bauer and the New School
e. In Defense of Orthodoxy
3. Conclusion – Making Sense of the Lost Gospels through a Postfoundational Approach
Lecture 4. Is the Bible Accurate? (Transmission, Corruption, Restoration and Inerrancy)
In the history of biblical copying and transmission, scribal errors were made. Was Jesus misquoted as some say? Why
should we trust those who are charged with restoring the corrupted texts to its correct state? Did the writers of the Bible
write of matters that are no longer relevant in our time? This is the story of the transmission, the appearance of errors
and the work of restoring the Bible to its intended state of meaning.
In recent years, critical biblical studies have uncovered many hitherto lost documents showing that the process of
biblical transmission is imperfect. This is because we humans are imperfect. The task of recovering corrupted texts
became the most important role of biblical theologians.
In BL4 & BL5 seminars, we shall examine what happened and how scientific investigations helped us to understand the
true meanings of textual error and inspiration of divine revelation. In the Bible, we have God’s Word in human words, an
infallible message transmitted fallibly. How then can we trust the Bible we read?
Outline of Lecture 4
1. The Corruption of the Bible
1.1 The Holy Spirit, The Message & The Messenger
1.2 Corruptions In Transmission
2. The Restoration of the Bible
2.1 The Restoration of Biblical texts is an Ongoing Process
2.2 Methods of Textual Criticism
2.3 Rules of Textual Criticism
3. Is the Bible Inerrant?
4. So, Can We Believe the Bible?
4.1 Issues of Accuracy
4.2 The Sufficiency of Revelation
4.3 The Ultimacy of Testimony
http://www.actministry.org/content.php?navid=36&cid=87
Lecture 5. Is the Bible Trustworthy? (Inspiration, Reliability & Authority)
After all that is said and done about and to the Bible, why do, or why should today’s Christians trust what is written in the
Bible? We shall explore some of the challenges directed at the trustworthiness of the Bible. Should the Bible be
considered reliable in the context of the 21st century notion of scientific investigation? Is it reasonable to assign authority
to a collection of ancient texts of dubious authenticity? This is the story of what it means when we say that the Bible is the
inspired Word of God even though humans with emotions, biases, prejudice and flawed rationalities wrote them down.
In recent years, critical biblical studies have uncovered many hitherto lost documents showing that the process of biblical
transmission is imperfect. This is because we humans are imperfect. The task of recovering corrupted texts became the
most important role of biblical theologians.
In BL4 & BL5 seminars, we shall examine what happened and how scientific investigations helped us to understand the
true meanings of textual error and inspiration of divine revelation. In the Bible, we have God’s Word in human words, an
infallible message transmitted fallibly. How then can we trust the Bible we read?
Outline of Lecture 5
1. Can Human Words Convey a Divine Message? The fallible transmission of an infallible message
1.1 Is a canonical interpretation different from that of isolated texts?
1.2 Is there an Original Text?
1.3 Fallible Transmission of an Infallible Message
1.4 Why Is The Transmission Of God’s Word Imperfect?
1.5 Is There An Infallibility Test?
1.6 The Paradox Of Christian Belief
2. How Were the Scriptures Inspired? Was it the text, the writer, the reader, the events?
2.1 Inspiration Speaks To The Trustworthiness Of The Biblical Witnesses
2.2 The Skeptic And Inspiration
2.3 The Believer And Inspiration
2.4 Four Types of Inspiration
3. Divine Diachronic Authority
3.1 Trust and Authority In The Natural Sciences
3.2 Trust and Authority In Theology
3.3 Synchronic and Diachronic Authority
4. So, Can We Trust The Bible?
4.1 Reliability
4.2 Trustworthiness
4.3 Is The Bible Reliable And Trustworthy With Textual Variations?
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/catalog/product/view/id/3558/s/good-question/?utm_source=newsletter214&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UK+February+2012