Yayutsu: In other words, you can not provide evidence from traditional Islamic teachings, so you rely on the interpretation of non-muslims to support your belief. It would be like me basing my understanding of Shri Ramakrishna not on what your teachers interpret of his teachings but on what someone like...well, Spencer, interprets it. You'll select whoever confirms your views with no willingness for critical reflection. Rational discussion is not possible under these circumstances.

Dear Grateful,

On the contrary, I am eager to hear Islamic scholars refute the views of Spencer. In fact, I believe that this is something the world needs, urgently, because Spencer's conclusions regarding the demands of the Quran are similar to those of Daesh. I believe that it is badly missing - or if it already exists, then it is not heard out loud.

My view is that those Muslims I know are wonderful religious people who love God and their fellow beings. THIS is the view that I would want to confirm - I have no reason whatsoever to want to confirm another view.

Yet the translated words of parts of the Quran, which unfortunately is all I can access, are striking in their violence and the way the Hadith speaks about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is blasphemous, cruelly depicting him as a monster, murderer and rapist, which God have mercy, pains me.

Being the case, I ask the question: why should the good Muslim people, lovers of God and His prophet, need to unjustly be cursed, stained and branded by such a violent book?

Yes, I want to be told, I want to be convinced that this is not the case. I want the world to hear that this is not the case. I want the Muslims to hear that this is not the case so they don't misguidedly think that the Prophet, peace be upon him, wanted them to join Daesh.

It is not enough to issue general statements telling "this is not true, the Quran is non-violent": we need Muslim scholars to answer both Spencer and Daesh claim-by-claim, verse-by-verse.

Where are those Sheikhs and Imams? If Spencer's analysis of the Quran can be refuted, then why don't we hear those learned refutations of Spencer and others from the rooftops?

In relation to the comment you made, grateful,:” several elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder “, you have not supplied the clarification I requested.
If, as seems likely, you simply missed your medication that day, and consequently made a baseless comment, fine, but at least let us know, and not attempt to avoid the issue.

AJ,
You say you were a Christian and a creationist in the past, and so that gives you some kind of inside knowledge on the topic. Conversely, most creationists I know were previously evolutionists (including, I think, the author of this article) until being convinced otherwise. So, it's a two-way street.

Banjo,
It's not so bad being a believer. I find it quite liberating actually. So, a man came back from the dead in unusual circumstances. Yet he was no ordinary man. The date in the corner of my computer screen reminds me of that. And I say it's liberating, partly because if I didn't believe it, I'd have five even more difficult things to believe, as spelled out in this article.

But why believe this man came back from the dead? It could be many reasons, some better than others. It could be from reports from others who claim to have experienced it as a reality. (I'm particularly thinking of the current date, 15th May, which is this year's Day or Pentecost, which believers celebrate as the day the Holy Spirit first made his particular impact felt on earth.)

Before that, it started with the first reports from women who came back from an empty tomb. But who would believe a group of excitable women who couldn't even get their story straight? But that was enough to engage others with a need to uncover the truth, and look into it deeper

Yes, Dan. I’ve mentioned this to you several times over the years.

<<You say you were a Christian and a creationist in the past, and so that gives you some kind of inside knowledge on the topic.>>

But in that last instance, I was more broadly referring to how the fundamentalist Christian erroneously reasons when trying to justify their faith. The example I gave before (“I didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist!”), is a classic one.

<<Conversely, most creationists I know were previously evolutionists (including, I think, the author of this article) until being convinced otherwise.>>

I seriously doubt it would be "most". But yes, I know a few myself too (although polls consistently suggest that the flow is heading much more rapidly in the other direction). And do you know one thing they all share in common?

Not one of them understood evolution before they before they became born-again Christians, and not one of them understands it now (why, even you yourself demonstrated that you don't understand evolution in some of your earlier posts to me on this thread).

But the similarities don’t end there.

Not one of them is a born-again Christian because creationist arguments convinced them that evolution wasn’t true and that creationism is. Not one. Two of them met (and ended up marrying) Christians and found the flashing lights and the rock music of the mega-stadiums appealing, the rest had addictions of various types and found God (who never seems to be able to appear before the addiction sets in, which would save the poor addict a lifetime of recovery).

Now, while it couldn’t always be said that those who are no longer Christians, understand evolution; it can be said that they at least know that, say, “Life is too complex to have evolved”, is not a valid argument. Further to that, former-creationists who manage to retain their faith, do always seem to understand evolution.

Coincidence? I think not.

Hi Dan

I don’t know the liturgy in your church, but in mine we proclaim “Christ is risen” twice in our regular communion services, during the greeting and in the memorial acclamation. It speaks to the risen Christ being a present reality. I agree that the resurrection can also be viewed as something that happened in the past, but it is the ongoing presence, not the historical event, that matters most in my view.

Hi Banjo

Apologies, looking at my earlier post I see my expression was not very clear. When I said: “Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith” I did not mean that the church experiences resurrection, but that the church experiences the presence of the risen Christ. This is experienced spiritually, not materially.