One thing that I’m good at is debating. It’s probably because I’ve done a lot of reading, have a great memory, and am really good at asking the right questions. In other words, I can really put my interlocutor on the spot. In terms of apologetics, this helps, but sometimes debating doesn’t get one anywhere. If someone loses an argument, it doesn’t mean they’re going to convert to your faith. It may contribute to it in the long run but it’s a stretch. It’s hard to get people out of their comfort zone. It’s a tactic one must use sparingly.
Over Christmas, I thought about many things. A few days before Christmas, I read an article on Rorate Caeli about a small group of Catholics in Turkey. These Catholics aren’t Polish immigrants or Italian foreign workers. They’re Turkish converts from Islam. What inspired this little group of Turks in Erdogan’s Turkey to reject Islam and Kemalist Secularism? Playing a large role in their conversion was the Traditional Latin Liturgy. What an amazing Evangelization tool! The line from the Turkish Catholic which touched me the most was:
In my critique of Islamic apologetics, I normally point out that the Islamic critique of Christianity is indeed a critique of Christianity but not an Islamic one. This often includes quoting secular scholars with anti-supernatutal presuppositions for their worldview. Muslim apologists seem to ignore the fact that these same scholars would laugh at the Islamic view of the Quran, Jesus, and Muhammad.
Deuteronomy is the final book in the Torah. It is the last set of instructions given to the Israelites before their military conquest of the holy land. God commanded the Israelites to invade the land and displace the inhabitants and set it up as their home and to follow His customs and laws. This happens in the book of Joshua.
When I first started this website back in 2015, I wanted to make a Recommended Reading section. When I originally made it, I only put a few books on the list and they were very basic. I’ve learnt a lot more about apologetics dealing with the online community since then. I now have a better idea about what is important and where focus needs to be put. I hope that my readers find this helpful. Here are my recent additions to the list:
I hope that everyone is having a great 2018. Recently I’ve been reading many medieval Christian polemics against Islam. When reading medieval Christian literature, we can’t ignore what St. Thomas Aquinas says. Sadly, I must admit the Angelic Doctor dropped the ball on this one; at least according to what he wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles. This won’t be popular amongst my Traditional Catholic friends but I believe that I have a good argument on this one.
Happy new year to all of my readers from the cold, barren, and frozen Canadian prairies. I wish you all a blessed 2018 filled with love and prosperity. The truth is that 2017 was probably the best year of my life for many reasons. So many good things happened to me and I thank God for them. Last year at this time, I made a list of things that I wanted to see in the apologetics world. Naturally 2017 was a big year for apologetics since it was the 500th anniversary of Luther’s so called reformation against the Church.
Earlier this year, the Turkish Islamic scholar Mustafa Akyol came out with the book The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims. The book is interesting, I’ll say that much. I had meant to read it earlier but other things got in the way. I picked it up yesterday and finished it today and am now going to share some of my thoughts on the book.
Church history is my speciality. I’ve been studying it in depth for eight years. One of the greatest rules of doing history is enemy attestation. We don’t have the surviving writings of many heretical groups but we have Catholic polemics against them and can therefore determine many of their beliefs.
Above is one of the most one sided debates that I’ve ever seen. It’s between Robert Spencer and Adnan Rashid about the existence of Muhammad. I’ve written about this topic before so I won’t elaborate on it here but I want to touch on the terrible tactic used by Rashid. Although I believe Muhammad existed and am not a fan of the Spencer brand of apologetics to Muslims, I think that Spencer easily won this debate.