Ray A wrote:To me, it is not a fraud. And if you think that I think Mormonism is a fraud, you have a serious re-think coming your way. Nothing that I have read in 33 years of studying Mormonism has convinced me to shout "fraud". Nothing. And I keep a very open mind. Life, and truth, are not so black and white as you wish to portray. If it was so black and white, we would not be having these debates. I know you are settled in your mind, and I pity your disillusionment, but don't expect the world to think in black and white, like you do. We don't have "all the answers", and believe it or not - that includes you, Tali.
Shades? I think we have just discovered the first "chapel former Mormon"
Ray, is there ANY religion that you think contains any fraudulent claims?
I don't know Eerdmans reputation in the scholarly world, but looking at a complete listing of their academic books, from my spotty skimming of a few pages they appear to have a number that have real academic heft--e.g., a number of exegetical works, a compilation by Peter Berger, a couple volumes by James Charlesworth, etc.
Eerdmans publishes a range of materials--"ministry" helps, theological works, works on ecumenism, etc. My guess (and it is only that) would be that Eerdmans was interested in Peterson's book at least partly because it was written in ecumenical spirit--it takes a position of respect toward Muhammad.
Eerdmans output would also appear to be highly variable in quality. So publication through them wouldn't necessarily indicate topnotch scholarship, as publication through Oxford is assumed to. I know Professor Peterson's book has been praised by *Muslim* scholars, probably because of the respect he accords their faith as a person of faith in his own religion. I would be interested in reading reviews from non-Muslim scholars judging the book on its historical merit.
DonBradley wrote:I don't know Eerdmans reputation in the scholarly world, but looking at a complete listing of their academic books, from my spotty skimming of a few pages they appear to have a number that have real academic heft--e.g., a number of exegetical works, a compilation by Peter Berger, a couple volumes by James Charlesworth, etc.
Eerdmans publishes a range of materials--"ministry" helps, theological works, works on ecumenism, etc. My guess (and it is only that) would be that Eerdmans was interested in Peterson's book at least partly because it was written in ecumenical spirit--it takes a position of respect toward Muhammad.
Eerdmans output would also appear to be highly variable in quality. So publication through them wouldn't necessarily indicate topnotch scholarship, as publication through Oxford is assumed to. I know Professor Peterson's book has been praised by *Muslim* scholars, probably because of the respect he accords their faith as a person of faith in his own religion. I would be interested in reading reviews from non-Muslim scholars judging the book on its historical merit.
Don
I'm sure "Peterson" would be interested in your "expert analysis", Don, based on what "non-Muslim" scholars have to say, because they are "obviously" objective. Right?
Is Dan as reputable as Mormons would like him to be?
No.
Is Dan as unknown to the scholarly community as critics would like him to be?
No.
Does being published by a reputable publishing company mean the scholarship therein is "top notch"?
No.
The best books written on Islam are those which are not published by academic presses, mainly because they are not bound by their politically correct standards.
The fact is, even Oxford University Press publishes some truly crap apologetic nonsense when it comes to Islam. Karen Armstrong for example, is not an Islamic scholar. She is not able to read Arabic or analyze the relevant material. She is an ex-Catholic with an axe to grind and she does so by praising Catholicisms historic enemy. Ýet ,people at Oxford will publish her on things Islamic because of her pro-Islam/anti-Christian views. Her views are so absuurd that they even make Dan raise his eyebrows (i.e. Muhammad was like Ghandi!).
I won't comment on Dan's book until I have read it though.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Ray A wrote:I'm sure "Peterson" would be interested in your "expert analysis", Don, based on what "non-Muslim" scholars have to say, because they are "obviously" objective. Right?
Erm ... Peterson is a non-Muslim scholar too, right? So I should think he would be interested in what other non-Muslim scholars think of his book, wouldn't you?
I don't know what you think is added by all the sarcasm and scare quotes. As you must be aware, many people would indeed expect a more objective study of many aspects of Islam (or any other religion) from scholars not already committed to a belief in some version of it as divinely revealed truth. That is reasonable. no?
By the way, are you yourself a tenured academic engaged in research into Islam? Or into any other subject for that matter? Just interested, and of course on an anonymous board like this I shall have to take your word for it one way or another.
dartagnan wrote:Is Dan as reputable as Mormons would like him to be?
No.
Is Dan as unknown to the scholarly community as critics would like him to be?
No.
Does being published by a reputable publishing company mean the scholarship therein is "top notch"?
No.
The best books written on Islam are those which are not published by academic presses, mainly because they are not bound by their politically correct standards.
The fact is, even Oxford University Press publishes some truly crap apologetic nonsense when it comes to Islam. Karen Armstrong for example, is not an Islamic scholar. She is not able to read Arabic or analyze the relevant material. She is an ex-Catholic with an axe to grind and she does so by praising Catholicisms historic enemy. Ýet ,people at Oxford will publish her on things Islamic because of her pro-Islam/anti-Christian views. Her views are so absuurd that they even make Dan raise his eyebrows (I.e. Muhammad was like Ghandi!).
I won't comment on Dan's book until I have read it though.
Kevin! How the hell are ya? Yeah, I think you better read Dan's book before commenting. I wonder how many other "critics" have done this? Now, Kevin - honest opinions, okay? Backed by sources if you object. I don't want your "opinion", I want sources, and if they back up your opinion, well so be it.
Chap wrote:By the way, are you yourself a tenured academic engaged in research into Islam? Or into any other subject for that matter? Just interested, and of course on an anonymous board like this I shall have to take your word for it one way or another.
I'm a tenured scholar specialising in taxi driving. You got a problem with that? Then go stuff it up your ASS.
Chap wrote:By the way, are you yourself a tenured academic engaged in research into Islam? Or into any other subject for that matter? Just interested, and of course on an anonymous board like this I shall have to take your word for it one way or another.
I'm a tenured scholar specialising in taxi driving. You got a problem with that? Then go stuff it up your ASS.
Don't be upset.
I am sure you are an extremely good taxi driver, and that you are a good and thoughtful man at heart, even if the frustrations of your job sometimes betray you into foolish aggression and bad language.
Chap wrote:I am sure you are an extremely good taxi driver, and that you are a good and thoughtful man at heart, even if the frustrations of your job sometimes betray you into foolish aggression and bad language.
Very good assessment. If I ever ascend to heaven I would rather be accompanied by someone who swears a stream a mile long than the long, smoothed faced HYPOCRITE. Okay, I borrowed that from Joseph Smith.