Most embarrasing Fox News interview ever? (Reza Aslan)

[D-Rose]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0

A scholar of religions and a historian writes a book about Jesus from a historical perspective and all this dumb interviewer lady that got her journalism degree from Cracker Barrel can question is that he's a Muslim :roll:

Safe to say, he destroys her. and if you want to know what his book is really about, youtube his interviews from the Daily show.

[Rasheed1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0

A scholar of religions and a historian writes a book about Jesus from a historical perspective and all this dumb interviewer lady that got her journalism degree from Cracker Barrel can question is that he's a Muslim :roll:

Safe to say, he destroys her. and if you want to know what his book is really about, youtube his interviews from the Daily show.


She basically was ignoring his credentials in order to keep pushing the fox drama..

it was sort of embarrassing that he had to keep reminding her that he was qualified to write about it.. She wasnt really prepared to talk about anything thing else except the fact that he was a muslim..

:facepalm @ fox

[Bandito]

As of now I have only watch the first 48 seconds and he just destroyed her right there.

He pretty much said he had 4 degrees in Biblical studies etc...and 20 decades of study of the origin of Christianity. OWNED!!! Fox news is such a joke.

[RidonKs]

its really funny how he's talking here. i saw him on colbert or stewart a few weeks ago and his style of speech was completely different, here he's spelling every single little thing out, speaking slow, enunciating every syllable... like he's talking to a child :lol

[TheMan]

That's Fox News for ya:oldlol:

[Rasheed1]

After watching the video again, it seems to me that the reason this guy is being attacked is because he argues that Jesus was likely an "enemy of the state".

He helps the poor, and the marginalized. He was crucified which according to Azlan was a punishment reserved for an insurrectionist rebel.

The insurrectionist rebel who defends the poor against the rich and the state is obviously the enemy of Fox and their republican ilk..

I think they use the "muslim" angle to stir up their meathead idiot base of viewers... but I think the real objection is to the characterization of christ as a trouble maker (in the eyes of the state) who was tortured and killed because he fought against the establishment...

[arkain]

so what was the point of this interview? lol they just wanted to point out that he was muslim so they could push their agenda? shoulda just thrown out a headline then instead of inviting him on the show and subsequently get raped :oldlol:

[Peteballa]

That was painful to watch. Hilarious, though.

[D-Rose]

This lady is such a fool and a disgrace lol, she clearly knows nothing about the book other than what the script says. Not to mention, she fails to comprehend it's not a spiritual evaluation, but a historical one ffs.

Also, hilarious that she ends with "well you been hiding that you're a muslim in the media" LOL and he destroys her immediately.

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't think this aired live. I think this was only viewable through Fox's website.

[millwad]

This lady is such a fool and a disgrace lol, she clearly knows nothing about the book other than what the script says. Not to mention, she fails to comprehend it's not a spiritual evaluation, but a historical one ffs.

Also, hilarious that she ends with "well you been hiding that you're a muslim in the media" LOL and he destroys her immediately.

According to her logic, you can't be an expert in a certain field no matter education as long you're not biased for it or completely unbiased.

And if you're biased for it, wouldn't that make it just as non-valid?

Haha, stupid reporter.

[Nick Young]

Jesus this bitch is a moron, I want to go check out this book though, seems pretty cool

[kNicKz]

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2jb9zdh.jpg

Jesus= Trayvon?

[red1]

who the f*ck does this muslim piece of shit think he is doing all this research and going through all of these historical accounts just to paint an accurate picture of the life of jesus. f*cking scumbag

[red1]

did you guys know this guy is muslim? the nerve

[D-Rose]

did you guys know this guy is muslim? the nerve
:roll: brilliant

[andgar923]

Gotta give him tons of props, he didn't walk out.

And she wasn't good at doing her job. A more seasoned Fox "reporter" would've done a better job at setting him up, would've done a better job at phrasing questions (baiting).

I agree with Rasheed.

From the brief description he gave of his portrayal he makes him sound like a liberal.

Always fascinating how some of the religious right actually go against what jesus would actually do.

[HarryCallahan]

After watching the video again, it seems to me that the reason this guy is being attacked is because he argues that Jesus was likely an "enemy of the state".

He helps the poor, and the marginalized. He was crucified which according to Azlan was a punishment reserved for an insurrectionist rebel.

The insurrectionist rebel who defends the poor against the rich and the state is obviously the enemy of Fox and their statist ilk..

I think they use the "muslim" angle to stir up their meathead idiot base of viewers... but I think the real objection is to the characterization of christ as a trouble maker (in the eyes of the state) who was tortured and killed because he fought against the establishment...


Good conclusion, but I take issue with the belief that FOX is slanted in favour of a party, rather than the maintenance of the "two party system."

[Rasheed1]

Good conclusion, but I take issue with the belief that FOX is slanted in favour of a party, rather than the maintenance of the "two party system."


fair correction on your part..

[HarryCallahan]

fair correction on your part..

Stuff like this is why I prefer FOX to CNN, their statist propaganda is geared towards the less educated, and is therefore more over the top and salacious. I mean nowhere but FOX are you going to see this many allegations of being a "Secret Muslim!" or "Secret Communist!"

They're like the Jerry Springer of cable news.

[Jameerthefear]

ouch. she got ripped apart.

[ballup]

She obviously didn't read the book and is just reading prompted questions that would try to instigate angry responses. I did not hear any praise for his book nor for his credentials.

[bluechox2]

if he wrote about mohammad, he wouldnt be alive

and he was on the colbert report recently and stated he was a christian on the show

[D-Rose]

if he wrote about mohammad, he wouldnt be alive

and he was on the colbert report recently and stated he was a christian on the show
What do you mean he wouldn't be alive?

Also, can you provide a link to that? I can't find an interview with Colbert report...he used to be a christian but later on converted to Islam.

[StocktonFan]

That dude annoyed the hell out of me.

Apparently he studied jesus on a personal level :coleman:

[Peteballa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oslV3wlAoF0

This is his interview with the Daily Show. It's amazing how different the author seems, it's like he's talking to an adult as opposed to talking to a small child. Hilarious.

[Derka]

I read Aslan's "No God But God" book...the guy knows his shit.

[KNOW1EDGE]

I don't get how he killed her?

He didn't even address any of her questions.

She kept on asking how a muslim could write a book on Jesus Christ without being biased?

He kept talking about how he is a "scholar" and has phd's.

But never addressed the fact that its not possible for him to be un-biased.

Like she said, it would be like a democrat writing a book on republicans, even if this democrat was a "Scholar" and had a phd in Republican studies, he is still biased.

Dude just kept throwing out his education, didn't address anything she asked. And he killed her? Only on ISH

[IamRAMBO24]

The guy is full of sh*t. It doesn't matter if he has a PHD and studying history from an objective perspective; the word "objective" and "history" do not belong in the same sentence. There is nothing objective about history. You interpret facts just like how you do it in law. One side can say Jesus is a saint based on the historical reference and another side can use the same facts to interpret him as a trouble maker.

With that said, the lady is incredibly stupid. She should of read his book before attacking him, and she should attack his professional background instead of his religious beliefs.

Truth is based on interpretation; the idea of objectivity is nothing more than a delusional concept since truth changes all the time. It's not permanent; everything we believe today as factual will change as history progresses, and it will go on and on forever.

[D-Rose]

I don't get how he killed her?

He didn't even address any of her questions.

She kept on asking how a muslim could write a book on Jesus Christ without being biased?

He kept talking about how he is a "scholar" and has phd's.

But never addressed the fact that its not possible for him to be un-biased.

Like she said, it would be like a democrat writing a book on republicans, even if this democrat was a "Scholar" and had a phd in Republican studies, he is still biased.

Dude just kept throwing out his education, didn't address anything she asked. And he killed her? Only on ISH
I honestly can't tell if this is a troll post but I'll bite :oldlol:

The fact that you think he's biased means you've read nothing he has ever written. Perhaps what you are alluring to is that he might take a "muslim" perspective on Jesus into this. I highly doubt that has anything to do with it. And he DID address that his findings contradict what Islam thinks, so how are you saying he has some Islamic bias here?

White people...you are NOT allowed to write books on MLK. Oh and you ****ing black historians...stay away from the Founding Fathers.

[D-Rose]

The guy is full of sh*t. It doesn't matter if he has a PHD and studying history from an objective perspective; the word "objective" and "history" do not belong in the same sentence. There is nothing objective about history. You interpret facts just like how you do it in law. One side can say Jesus is a saint based on the historical reference and another side can use the same facts to interpret him as a trouble maker.

With that said, the lady is incredibly stupid. She should of read his book before attacking him, and she should attack his professional background instead of his religious beliefs.

Truth is based on interpretation; the idea of objectivity is nothing more than a delusional concept since truth changes all the time. It's not permanent; everything we believe today as factual will change as history progresses, and it will go on and on forever.

You're a moron. He clearly points out that his book is merely an interpretation..I mean did you not even watch the video? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: He specifically states that some agree with him and some disagree but that is the point of scholarship, to engage in debate on historical events and figures...he said that when the moronic lady questions him about him using different sources than other scholars :roll:

[KNOW1EDGE]

I honestly can't tell if this is a troll post but I'll bite :oldlol:

The fact that you think he's biased means you've read nothing he has ever written. Perhaps what you are alluring to is that he might take a "muslim" perspective on Jesus into this. I highly doubt that has anything to do with it. And he DID address that his findings contradict what Islam thinks, so how are you saying he has some Islamic bias here?

White people...you are NOT allowed to write books on MLK. Oh and you ****ing black historians...stay away from the Founding Fathers.

So you did exactly what he did, you didn't address anything I asked.

How did he kill her?

And how can a muslim write a book on Jesus Christ and not be biased??

How can a Christian write a book on Jesus Christ and not be biased?

I don't have to read the book, why would I read the book?

Nice sarcasm at the end tho. Very moving.

[KNOW1EDGE]

You're a moron. He clearly points out that his book is merely an interpretation..I mean did you not even watch the video? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: He specifically states that some agree with him and some disagree but that is the point of scholarship, to engage in debate on historical events and figures...he said that when the moronic lady questions him about him using different sources than other scholars :roll:

Calling people names and using smiley faces really proves your point very well.

Don't worry about addressing any of the questions, or information put forth. Just name-call and use smiley faces.

[Rasheed1]

You're a moron. He clearly points out that his book is merely an interpretation..I mean did you not even watch the video? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: He specifically states that some agree with him and some disagree but that is the point of scholarship, to engage in debate on historical events and figures...he said that when the moronic lady questions him about him using different sources than other scholars :roll:


exactly... and he re iterates (for stupid people) that the book isnt even about the divinity of Jesus, but that it is about the man who actually walked the earth, and his impact on the world that he actually lived in..

the woman is insisting on making the interview about his personal faith and the petty idea that a muslim scholar isnt smart enough or unbiased enough to write a book about jesus..

the interview is absurd and a joke ... it exposes fox for the propaganda machine that they are

smack yourself if you fall for their rhetoric

[D-Rose]

So you did exactly what he did, you didn't address anything I asked.

How did he kill her?

And how can a muslim write a book on Jesus Christ and not be biased??

How can a Christian write a book on Jesus Christ and not be biased?

I don't have to read the book, why would I read the book?

Nice sarcasm at the end tho. Very moving.
I addressed exactly what you are talking about...let me spell this out for you cupcake...

A muslim can write a book about Jesus and not be biased if he doesn't use Islam as the lens for the book, doesn't follow Islamic interpretations of Jesus, or mention Islam at all.

He did exactly that by saying he believes in a crucifixion as a historical fact, but believe me Islam totally condemns that idea. If he had an agenda or bias, why would he contradict a fundamental Islamic belief of Jesus?

This book is not about spiritual Jesus, God Jesus, Demi-god Jesus, Jesus the savior, etc...it's a book that takes the historical and factual knowledge of Jesus and creates an interpretation of him as a person and a historical figure.

Jesus isn't demonized or looked down upon in this book, so I don't even see where this bias or agenda thing is coming from.

[D-Rose]

Calling people names and using smiley faces really proves your point very well.

Don't worry about addressing any of the questions, or information put forth. Just name-call and use smiley faces.
And yet, between all the cute smileys and the names, I provide logical reasoning and direct information from the interview and his other appearances.

[KNOW1EDGE]

lol

Okay sweetheart, do I need to spell it out for you?

Its not possible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Even if you are just talking about him as a historical human being, not the son of god.

It was a stupid question in the first place, and his answer was even stupider, because he didn't even answer her question, that's why she kept asking it.

Answer my question please, how did he kill her? and how can he not be biased? Ill wait.

[IamRAMBO24]

You're a moron. He clearly points out that his book is merely an interpretation..I mean did you not even watch the video? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: He specifically states that some agree with him and some disagree but that is the point of scholarship, to engage in debate on historical events and figures...he said that when the moronic lady questions him about him using different sources than other scholars :roll:

Um yea, I saw the video. What video did you watch? Clearly he said based on his PHD, he has absolutely no slant on the topic and then contradicts himself by presenting a slant by calling Jesus a zealot. Whether or not he has a bias is irrelevant; just by clinging on to his PHD and the concepts of "objectivity" and "historical facts" makes his argument fallacious. How can anyone claim to be objective and subjective at the same time? It's a contradiction. Period.

Of course those not versed in the rules of logic will find this guy incredibly intelligent.

[D-Rose]

lol

Okay sweetheart, do I need to spell it out for you?

Its not possible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Even if you are just talking about him as a historical human being, not the son of god.

It was a stupid question in the first place, and his answer was even stupider, because he didn't even answer her question, that's why she kept asking it.

Answer my question please, how did he kill her? and how can he not be biased? Ill wait.
I answered your question with direct quotes from him, and you choose to ignore them over and over :rolleyes:

He would be biased if he were writing a book about Jesus being a god or not. That's not his book. Many historians write about figures that they are not demographically or even ideologically aligned with, personally. Obviously you don't see a distinction between the two.

And he killed her because all she did the entire interview is try and wonder why he is allowed to write this book, but barely even discuss its contents. He refuted everything she said with calm logic and poise and continued discussing his actual research and findings.

Not to mention, she accuses him about not being honest that he's a muslim and he completely shuts her up by saying it's on the 2nd page of the book :facepalm

Oh and don't both replying, you're dumber than the interviewer.

[D-Rose]

Um yea, I saw the video. What video did you watch? Clearly he said based on his PHD, he has absolutely no slant on the topic and then contradicts himself by presenting a slant by calling Jesus a zealot. Whether or not he has a bias is irrelevant; just by clinging on to his PHD and the concepts of "objectivity" and "historical facts" makes his argument fallacious. How can anyone claim to be objective and subjective at the same time? It's a contradiction. Period.

Of course those not versed in the rules of logic will find this guy incredibly intelligent.
Please tell me you know the historical significance of "zealot" and its meaning in Jewish/Roman relations...it's okay buddy, just hit new tab right there and google it.

He didn't merely point out his credentials, which to be fair he's only saying because she is accusing him of not being qualified to speak on Jesus.

He used the facts known about Jesus to create an interpretation of him as a person based on the time period and the setting...if you think Islam has anything to do with that time period, you're nuts.

How do you explain him contradicting Islam on the crucifixion if he is biased?

He's being as "objective" as one can be with history, creating interpretations based on facts...not wildly throwing out random ideas based on Mohammad and Islam :oldlol:

[KNOW1EDGE]

Oh and don't both replying, you're dumber than the interviewer.

I wont "both"

Again, you are resorting to petty name calling because you are in over your head, and have nothing new to say.

For some reason you cant comprehend that NO ONE can write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Using semantics, smiley faces and name-calling doesn't change that buddy. God bless.

[D-Rose]

I wont "both"

Again, you are resorting to petty name calling because you are in over your head, and have nothing new to say.

For some reason you cant comprehend that NO ONE can write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Using semantics, smiley faces and name-calling doesn't change that buddy. God bless.
You haven't addressed a single point I have made up to this point. Bother to do so? I'd love to see a breakdown of why the information I have provided is incorrect.

[KNOW1EDGE]

You haven't addressed a single point I have made up to this point. Bother to do so? I'd love to see a breakdown of why the information I have provided is incorrect.

You haven't provided any information, rather your opinion.

Just like I have provided my opinion.

In my opinion, it is impossible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ.

Just like it would be impossible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Republicans.

I think the question itself was stupid, and pointless, and I think his answer didn't even address her question. That's my opinion. :cheers:

Im gonna go read a book. :cheers:

[RidonKs]

Um yea, I saw the video. What video did you watch? Clearly he said based on his PHD, he has absolutely no slant on the topic and then contradicts himself by presenting a slant by calling Jesus a zealot. Whether or not he has a bias is irrelevant; just by clinging on to his PHD and the concepts of "objectivity" and "historical facts" makes his argument fallacious. How can anyone claim to be objective and subjective at the same time? It's a contradiction. Period.

Of course those not versed in the rules of logic will find this guy incredibly intelligent.
:facepalm

its a contradiction if you take his claim that his book is "objective" to mean that it has some divine authority that we must bow down to because reza aslan is the the cosmic arbiter between fact and fiction and his word is graven in stone and beyond dispute.

of course thats retarded and you know its retarded. the colloquial use of 'objective' means to treat the relevant evidence without distortion and to abide by the rules of logic and rationality.

calling jesus a zealot isn't a slant, its a factual claim. you start by defining zealot, and if we can agree on a definition, you look into the evidence available that supports the claim. well as it turns out, the etymology of the word in question actually dates waaaaay back to *gasp* the first century holy land where members of the jewish liberation movement rebelling against the roman empire were called "zealots"... im sure its mere coincidence that jesus was crucified for crimes against the imperial state

aslan is quite intelligent. its a shame you cant seem to appreciate that fact.

[IamRAMBO24]

Aslan's premise:

To explore the reasons why the early Christian church preferred to promulgate an image of Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically conscious revolutionary.

How anybody can say that is not a slant is beyond me. The guy is just versed in logical deception by clinging on to meaningless terms such as "historical facts."

The concept of historical fact can't exist because history is an interpretation of events based on the perspective of the person writing history. Example: in American history, we have a sugar coated version leaving out important events to paint America as the leading authority on humanism and collectivism, leaving out many facts about the persecution of Indians, the Mayflower compact (to attack religion), and many other examples.

Aslan, like many other historians, already has an angle he wants to present his topic, all he needs to do is to find the facts to support his interpretation.

Therefore, claiming he is being objective is just a deceptive use of logic.

[iamgine]

What some people don't understand is being Religion A doesn't mean you hate Religion B.

You can be a Democrat and not hate Republican. You can be pro Jews and still admire some of Hitler's works and the person himself. You can be a Christian and admire Buddha.

[D-Rose]

You haven't provided any information, rather your opinion.

Just like I have provided my opinion.

In my opinion, it is impossible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ.

Just like it would be impossible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Republicans.

I think the question itself was stupid, and pointless, and I think his answer didn't even address her question. That's my opinion. :cheers:

Im gonna go read a book. :cheers:
Well this if the third time I'll be typing it so let's hope you actually address this piece of information: what do you think about his book contradicting two core Islamic beliefs about Jesus?

That's all. Look at that question within the context of if he's using an Islamic bias and answer it.

[IamRAMBO24]

In fact, by using his background as a scholar, he is engaging in an old school popular form of logical deception:

Appeal to authority:

Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty.

[HarryCallahan]

I wont "both"

Again, you are resorting to petty name calling because you are in over your head, and have nothing new to say.

For some reason you cant comprehend that NO ONE can write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Using semantics, smiley faces and name-calling doesn't change that buddy. God bless.

Won't fakkit, there's an apostrophe there. Don't you think it's ironic you made a typo trying to correct another poster typo?
I also think it's incredibly ironic that you state D-Rose is "in over his head," whilst you are resorting to the desperate act of trying to correct a typo.

You just plain old suck buddy.

[D-Rose]

Aslan's premise:

To explore the reasons why the early Christian church preferred to promulgate an image of Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically conscious revolutionary.

How anybody can say that is not a slant is beyond me. The guy is just versed in logical deception by clinging on to meaningless terms such as "historical facts."

The concept of historical fact can't exist because history is an interpretation of events based on the perspective of the person writing history. Example: in American history, we have a sugar coated version leaving out important events to paint America as the leading authority on humanism and collectivism, leaving out many facts about the persecution of Indians, the Mayflower compact (to attack religion), and many other examples.

Aslan, like many other historians, already has an angle he wants to present his topic, all he needs to do is to find the facts to support his interpretation.

Therefore, claiming he is being objective is just a deceptive use of logic.
So what is your counter argument, using historical facts to say that Jesus wasn't a political revolutionary fighting for the poor and disadvantaged against the Roman state?

Look that's fine that you don't agree with that statement, but saying he believes that because he has some negative slant on Jesus and is trashing him is just wrong. I'm sure if you read his book, you will find the sources he refers to at the end of the book as well as the scholars that agree/disagree with his points.

[HarryCallahan]

In fact, by using his background as a scholar, he is engaging in an old school popular form of logical deception:

Appeal to authority:

Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty.


:banghead:

Not everything is a conspiracy. He isn't attempting to deceive, he's trying to sell his book...

For such a "philosophical free thinker" you sure are bogged down into the belief that "they" are trying to deceive "us."

[D-Rose]

By the way, you've got to love the media attention Fox News has given this book. It'd be great to see his sales and Amazon web views in the last day or so.

I am usually completely apathetic to religion and this has me weirdly...interested. I don't practice any faith but was raised a Muslim and turned Atheist but then realized how silly that was too and now...I don't judge anyone based on religion and just respect their beliefs while it doesn't ever matter to me personally.

[RidonKs]

To explore the reasons why the early Christian church preferred to promulgate an image of Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically conscious revolutionary.
that's not a premise. that's a thesis statement or a hypothesis on behalf of which he's making an argument. and until his book is actually read and reviewed, we don't know if it's biased or slanted or anything.

he does make another factual claim in that interview; his end notes supposedly cite every single author that has expressed an opinion in agreement or disagreement with his opinion. whether thats true should be subject to scrutiny. whether or not he gives their opinions and their evidence fair and balanced treatment should also be subject to scrutiny.

but the idea that he's clearly an idiot or a manipulator or a polemicist with an agenda.... only on the basis of this lone 9 minute interview, in which he "contradicts himself" by calling his work both objective and subjective is just a wild jump to a fantastical conclusion.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Won't fakkit, there's an apostrophe there. Don't you think it's ironic you made a typo trying to correct another poster typo?
I also think it's incredibly ironic that you state D-Rose is "in over his head," whilst you are resorting to the desperate act of trying to correct a typo.

You just plain old suck buddy.

poster's.

I find that ironic.

I actually shared my opinion. You just came in this thread to cry because you are still butt-hurt.

[D-Rose]

poster's.

I find that ironic.

I actually shared my opinion. You just came in this thread to cry because you are still butt-hurt.
I'm still waiting on a reply, check the last page. I took out all the names and smileys in case that was distracting you or something.

[bluechox2]

What do you mean he wouldn't be alive?

Also, can you provide a link to that? I can't find an interview with Colbert report...he used to be a christian but later on converted to Islam.
with the fanatacism that is associated with writing or saying anything that may go against the "mohammad" of the quran would probably lead to something big going down

he picked the safer choice in jesus where, everyone and anyone can say anything and nothing will happen to them except some bad criticism

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-17-2013-reza-aslan

he was a muslim first, converted to christianity, then converted back

[Patrick Chewing]

So a Muslim writes a book about Jesus and titles it, "Zealot".



And the indoctrination of Islam slowly creeps in to the Western world.



I suppose if I were to write a book and title it, "Pedophile", with a picture of good ol' Mohammed on the cover, I'll be asked to talk about it on Al-Jazeera.

[D-Rose]

with the fanatacism that is associated with writing or saying anything that may go against the "mohammad" of the quran would probably lead to something big going down

he picked the safer choice in jesus where, everyone and anyone can say anything and nothing will happen to them except some bad criticism

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-17-2013-reza-aslan
I watched that interview too, it's a good one. He never said that he IS Christian. He said that he converted to Christianity when he was a teen and was fascinated by the gospel but later on became more interested in historical Jesus. He obviously converted to Islam later...his wife and mother are Christian.

Anyway, your comment on the Mohammad thing is unfound because he's not living in some fanatical Islamic state..he lives in Los Angeles.

Not to mention he already wrote one of those: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_God_but_God:_The_Origins,_Evolution,_and_Future _of_Islam
:roll:

[HarryCallahan]

poster's.

I find that ironic.

I actually shared my opinion. You just came in this thread to cry because you are still butt-hurt.

Another correction of a TYPO, and the term butt-hurt - all in one post, it's like an idiot's guide on how to argue un-successfully.

And because you're an idiot who doesn't read, I'll have you know I "expressed my opinion" a full 10 posts before you entered the thread fukkwit. It was on the same page, if you bothered to read the thread or watch the video before your ignorant ass started posting you wouldn't look (AS) foolish.

Another incredibly inaccurate post from the ironically named "KNOW1EDGE"

[D-Rose]

So a Muslim writes a book about Jesus and titles it, "Zealot".



And the indoctrination of Islam slowly creeps in to the Western world.



I suppose if I were to write a book and title it, "Pedophile", with a picture of good ol' Mohammed on the cover, I'll be asked to talk about it on Al-Jazeera.
You should google where the word zealot comes from and its actual meaning. Shocking, eh? He's not attacking him by calling him that. Watch his interview on the Daily Show, you will see his actual beliefs of Jesus..he has a personal connection with him and certainly an admiration and respect.

[Patrick Chewing]

You should google where the word zealot comes from and its actual meaning. Shocking, eh? He's not attacking him by calling him that. Watch his interview on the Daily Show, you will see his actual beliefs of Jesus..he has a personal connection with him and certainly an admiration and respect.


Will do, and thank you for sharing.

[IamRAMBO24]

You should google where the word zealot comes from and its actual meaning. Shocking, eh? He's not attacking him by calling him that. Watch his interview on the Daily Show, you will see his actual beliefs of Jesus..he has a personal connection with him and certainly an admiration and respect.

Zealot

A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds like a characteristic of the Muslim population; sounds like a slant to paint Jesus in the same lens as fanatical terrorism. Sounds like dude is lashing out based upon this characteristic.

Oh yea, of course, he's a scholar, so his position is gold and unfathomable.

[ballup]

So a Muslim writes a book about Jesus and titles it, "Zealot".



And the indoctrination of Islam slowly creeps in to the Western world.



I suppose if I were to write a book and title it, "Pedophile", with a picture of good ol' Mohammed on the cover, I'll be asked to talk about it on Al-Jazeera.

Zealot: A member of a Jewish movement of the first century a.d. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zealot
I think he loosely fits that definition.

[Scoooter]

Zealot

A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds like a characteristic of the Muslim population; sounds like a slant to paint Jesus in the same lens as fanatical terrorism. Sounds like dude is lashing out based upon this characteristic.

Oh yea, of course, he's a scholar, so his position is gold and unfathomable.
Cue the Princess Bride quote about words not meaning what you think they mean...

[D-Rose]

Zealot

A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds like a characteristic of the Muslim population; sounds like a slant to paint Jesus in the same lens as fanatical terrorism. Sounds like dude is lashing out based upon this characteristic.

Oh yea, of course, he's a scholar, so his position is gold and unfathomable.

As others pointed out already, look at the etymology of the word. That's where the word came from, its meaning has been altered over the past two thousand years.

And obviously that's a huge leap based on a word you have the wrong meaning for, there's no other proof to say that he'd trying to paint Jesus as a terrorist. He actually admires Jesus very much for being a leader and revolutionary for his people...there's nothing wrong with that btw.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zealot
I think he loosely fits that definition.

Meaning Jesus is a modern day terrorist.

This coming from a muslim who uses a logical deception (he is the authority on the subject since he is a scholar) to hide his covert motive of blatantly representing Jesus in same light as how the world sees his religion and Mohammad.

And you idiots fail for this sh*t with your disdain towards Christianity. GTFO.

[D-Rose]

Meaning Jesus is a modern day terrorist.

This coming from a muslim who uses a logical deception (he is the authority on the subject since he is a scholar) to hide his covert motive of blatantly representing Jesus in same light as how the world sees his religion and Mohammad.

And you idiots fail for this sh*t with your disdain towards Christianity. GTFO.
I'm not sure about your personal beliefs, but why would you say anyone in here has disdain towards Christianity?

Since you can't read the book right now, will you go watch the daily show interview? There's a 3 part extended thing on youtube...he goes into detail on what he really believes about Jesus...there's lots in there. For now you're basing your assumption off one word, which doesn't mean what you think it does. Just watch it then we'll discuss.

[RidonKs]

Meaning Jesus is a modern day terrorist
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


what's funniest is that even the definition you posted, which isn't what we're talking about, most certainly applies to jesus. everything we understand about him paints him as "fanatical and uncompromising" in his ideals. this isn't an attack on his character because the ideals he stood for dominate ethical discourse and i'm sure we'd all agree with them for the most part. but he was absolutely uncompromising and fanatical in his beliefs and his pursuit of their implementation. and by 'fanatical', of course we can't possibly mean violent or aggressive, since that would fly in the face of the very ideals he stands for. edit: annd of course, it also directly violates any assertion that jesus was a terrorist.... which for some unbelievably SLANTED reason you're taking as synonymous with zealot.

goodness gracious you're making yourself look silly here

[IamRAMBO24]

As others pointed out already, look at the etymology of the word. That's where the word came from, its meaning has been altered over the past two thousand years.

Guess what, his book is in this decade, so whatever old a*s definition of zealot in the past does not matter since our meaning of zealots today is basically characterized by a fanatic uncompromising in his pursuit based on religious grounds (cough* Muslim terrorism), so basically he is calling Jesus a terrorist based on our interpretation of the meaning of a zealot today.

You don't see this as a slant? Hiding behind his questionable scholarly attributes does not make it anything less as such.

[D-Rose]

Guess what, his book is in this decade, so whatever old a*s definition of zealot in the past does not matter since our meaning of zealots today is basically characterized by a fanatic uncompromising in his pursuit based on religious grounds (cough* Muslim terrorism), so basically he is calling Jesus a terrorist based on our interpretation of the meaning of a zealot today.

You don't see this as a slant? Hiding behind his questionable scholarly attributes does not make it anything less as such.
RidonKs just put it best in the post above.

It's not an attack on Jesus. A zealot is what he was in the literal sense of the word and now as we call it as a fanatical and relentless religious person...which Jesus was but not in a negative light. If Reza is painting him as a terrorist, provide the evidence?

Please go watch the daily show interview. I feel like you're embarrassing yourself with your current angle and will have a better understanding after you know more about this guy.

[HarryCallahan]

Guess what, his book is in this decade, so whatever old a*s definition of zealot in the past does not matter since our meaning of zealots today is basically characterized by a fanatic uncompromising in his pursuit based on religious grounds (cough* Muslim terrorism), so basically he is calling Jesus a terrorist based on our interpretation of the meaning of a zealot today.

You don't see this as a slant? Hiding behind his questionable scholarly attributes does not make it anything less as such.

Okay then, i'm calling you a fakkit, in the modern interpretation of the word. Something tells me you got denied entry to some sort of school, because I haven't seen so much opposition to scholastic pursuits since Teddy Kaczynski.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm not sure about your personal beliefs, but why would you say anyone in here has disdain towards Christianity?

Since you can't read the book right now, will you go watch the daily show interview? There's a 3 part extended thing on youtube...he goes into detail on what he really believes about Jesus...there's lots in there. For now you're basing your assumption off one word, which doesn't mean what you think it does. Just watch it then we'll discuss.

The book is widely available and can be downloaded online. I'm already half way through the book and so far the only logical conclusion I can come to is Aslan is just trying to paint Jesus in the same light in comparison to the disdain Mohammed is 0experiencing in America today.

His book is anything but objective. He's basically calling Jesus a modern day terrorist with conclusions like,

[B]Two thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher and miracle worker walked across the Galilee, gathering followers to establish what he called the

[D-Rose]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]The book is widely available and can be downloaded online. I'm already half way through the book and so far the only logical conclusion I can come to is Aslan is just trying to paint Jesus in the same light in comparison to the disdain Mohammed is 0experiencing in America today.

His book is anything but objective. He's basically calling Jesus a modern day terrorist with conclusions like,

[B]Two thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher and miracle worker walked across the Galilee, gathering followers to establish what he called the

[Nick Young]

I don't get how he killed her?

He didn't even address any of her questions.

She kept on asking how a muslim could write a book on Jesus Christ without being biased?

He kept talking about how he is a "scholar" and has phd's.

But never addressed the fact that its not possible for him to be un-biased.

Like she said, it would be like a democrat writing a book on republicans, even if this democrat was a "Scholar" and had a phd in Republican studies, he is still biased.

Dude just kept throwing out his education, didn't address anything she asked. And he killed her? Only on ISH
Dont Muslims worship Jesus as one of the prophets? Why would a muslim be biased against against Jesus when it's part of the religion to like the guy?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Another correction of a TYPO, and the term butt-hurt - all in one post, it's like an idiot's guide on how to argue un-successfully.

And because you're an idiot who doesn't read, I'll have you know I "expressed my opinion" a full 10 posts before you entered the thread fukkwit. It was on the same page, if you bothered to read the thread or watch the video before your ignorant ass started posting you wouldn't look (AS) foolish.

Another incredibly inaccurate post from the ironically named "KNOW1EDGE"

lol you are desperate.

Nobdoy is arguing, im simply stating my opinion. My point was, you call me out for noting someones typo, and tell me its ironic cuz I had a typo, and then you have your own typo. lol and im the idiot?

And you are so desperate to feel good about your self that you resort to petty name calling and general f*ckry. Very childish. Your shook. I watched the video. I shared my opinion. Sorry it isn't the same as yours. Get over it. Post your opinion or don't post at all. I understand you posted your opinion earlier, I read it, why continue to post if not to share your opinion but instead try un-successfully call people out, call them names and make your own self look bad?

[Nick Young]

Zealot

A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds like a characteristic of the Muslim population; sounds like a slant to paint Jesus in the same lens as fanatical terrorism. Sounds like dude is lashing out based upon this characteristic.

Oh yea, of course, he's a scholar, so his position is gold and unfathomable.
Christianity was a religion of zealotry and always has been ever since the religion first started

[IamRAMBO24]

Are you kidding me? That is not a conclusion that points at terrorism but heroism. There is nothing wrong with that statement, dude. The Romans hated him and his ideas and quashed him...what slant exists there? He never said that Jesus' struggle and movement was a bad thing...all he is saying that it was a threat to the Romans and they didn't like it so they killed him...that's the truth!

The picture he is painting sounds more like Robin Hood than Bin Laden if you ask me.

Let's break your logical fallacies:

1. You seem to be obssessed with his historical "factual" references.

2. Since he is speaking as a scholar (a position of authority), his conclusions must be correct.

I already disarmed the idea of "historical facts" since history can't possibly be objective since it's original premise is an interpretation of facts and not the other way around.

An appeal to authority can't be taken at face value because even those in positions of authority can be prone to bias.

What else does he have left from a logical position?

He's just a Muslim calling Jesus a zealot, which is nothing more than a "fanatic fighting for a cause based on religious grounds."

How is this any different from the popular perspective we view Mohammed and his followers today?

[ballup]

Meaning Jesus is a modern day terrorist.

This coming from a muslim who uses a logical deception (he is the authority on the subject since he is a scholar) to hide his covert motive of blatantly representing Jesus in same light as how the world sees his religion and Mohammad.

And you idiots fail for this sh*t with your disdain towards Christianity. GTFO.
In the eyes of the Romans, he was considered a terrorist. His influence caused political instability and community division.

[Nick Young]

Jesus was like Ghandi of his times, only unlike Britain they killed him before he had time to do anything major.

[D-Rose]

Let's break your logical fallacies:

1. You seem to be obssessed with his historical "factual" references.

2. Since he is speaking as a scholar (a position of authority), his conclusions must be correct.

I already disarmed the idea of "historical facts" since history can't possibly be objective since it's original premise is an interpretation of facts and not the other way around.

An appeal to authority can't be taken at face value because even those in positions of authority can be prone to bias.

What else does he have left from a logical position?

He's just a Muslim calling Jesus a zealot, which is nothing more than a "fanatic fighting for a cause based on religious grounds."

How is this any different from the popular perspective we view Mohammed and his followers today?
I obviously don't think merely being a historian or scholar means he can't be wrong. Hell, there are probably many scholars that disagree with him...that would completely contradict thinking that someone is right just because of their degrees.

Anyway, a terrorist is a fanatic in that they fight to break social order and use violence as a means to political power.

What Jesus as a zealot is someone fighting for his beliefs and the freedom of his people...you can compare it to MLK Jr. in a sense.

Nowhere is the guy saying that Jesus was violent or used the tactics of terrorists.

He's like any other leader that wanted to give their own group freedom.

[HarryCallahan]

lol you are desperate.

Nobdoy is arguing, im simply stating my opinion. My point was, you call me out for noting someones typo, and tell me its ironic cuz I had a typo, and then you have your own typo. lol and im the idiot?

And you are so desperate to feel good about your self that you resort to petty name calling and general f*ckry. Very childish. Your shook. I watched the video. I shared my opinion. Sorry it isn't the same as yours. Get over it. Post your opinion or don't post at all. I understand you posted your opinion earlier, I read it, why continue to post if not to share your opinion but instead try un-successfully call people out, call them names and make your own self look bad?

Yes, because correcting peoples TYPO's is extremely gay, and you were only doing it because you couldn't refute D-Rose's points, just like in the "fat people" thread.
I only corrected yours because of the irony. I mean there's a bunch of typos up there (though the consistent lack of apostrophe's for "I'm" could lead it to be classed as grammatical error), that i'm not correcting, because unlike you I have the intellectual acumen to actually state and argue my case.

Stop saying sh!t like "butt-hurt" and "shook," without first explaining: How? What over? Why would I be upset at it?

EDIT: holy sh!t there's a LOT of spelling/grammar errors in your post. I wouldn't go around correcting other people if I were you fakkit. I mean there is a shit-load of them, and they're not TYPO's, because they're too consistent.

[IamRAMBO24]

In the eyes of the Romans, he was considered a terrorist. His influence caused political instability and community division.

Thank you.

That is the slant Aslan is trying to argue: Jesus is a terrorist just like his beloved Mohammad.

Just because he is using a logical deceptive device and speaking from a position of authority does not mean he is not trying to push his perspective in his book.

He views Jesus as a trouble maker and a zealot; other's view him as a saint and a freedom fighter. Both very different interpretations, but the problem is Aslan is throwing around his stupid PHD to manipulate the argument in his favor. That's my biggest gripe. I don't have a problem with him voicing his opinion, but to play it out as some sort of historical fact is laughable and only convincing to people who are not versed in logic.

[Rasheed1]

He's just a Muslim calling Jesus a zealot, which is nothing more than a "fanatic fighting for a cause based on religious grounds."

How is this any different from the popular perspective we view Mohammed and his followers today?


while you walk the earth, there is not much of difference ..

if you are a zealot, than that speaks to the time you live in as much as it speaks to your tenets.. a zealot in a police state is a hero... a zealot in a free society is troubled radical..

the idea of christ as a zealot is a very intriguing idea indeed.. It speaks to the facade of the establishment even back in his day...

it smacks of Liberation theology (ooops!!)

the idea that God supports the underclass.. the downtrodden.. the marginalized

that is blasphemy in the fox world of statism (shout out to harry callahan)..

the idea that jesus isnt an establishment figure is a problem to establishment religion and establishment government

his book seems to pick that scab.. Im interested and I think I will buy it to see his point of view

[ballup]

Thank you.

That is the slant Aslan is trying to argue: Jesus is a terrorist just like his beloved Mohammad.

Just because he is using a logical deceptive device and speaking from a position of authority does not mean he is not trying to push his perspective in his book.

He views Jesus as a trouble maker and a zealot; other's view him as a saint and a freedom fighter. Both very different interpretations, but the problem is Aslan is throwing around his stupid PHD to manipulate the argument in his favor. Thon, but to play it out as some sort of historical fact is laughable and oat's my biggest gripe. I don't have a problem with him voicing his opininly convincing to people who are not versed in logic.
Because he forced people to rebel against the policies of the Roman empire? I don't know what you think that is, but that is definitely causing trouble.

He's not throwing his PHD around to say he's right, he's stating it because FOX is disrespecting his hard work. But it's okay if you, certain critics, and FOX tell him that his 20+ years of research and commitment means little to nothing.

[IamRAMBO24]

Because he forced people to rebel against the policies of the Roman empire? I don't know what you think that is, but that is definitely causing trouble.

He's not throwing his PHD around to say he's right, he's stating it because FOX is disrespecting his hard work. But it's okay if you, certain critics, and FOX tell him that his 20+ years of research and commitment means little to nothing.

Commitment? PHD? Scholarly work? Whatever dude. I'm already half way done with the book and there is nothing in there that is seminal, revolutionary, or even "scholarly" that he proposes.

The idea that Jesus is a rebel has been written, re-written, many times before by scholars like John Dear, Matthew Hoffman, and many others like them.

The difference is they don't try to slant him as a "trouble maker" or a zealot. They painted him in the picture of a saint fighting for justice and peace. That's the difference.

Aslan wants you to think he was a terrorist.

At least the others didn't shout down everybody's throat like a broken record he is right because of some lame PHD background. Unlike A*sman, they are smart enough to know that they are speaking from a position of interpretation and not that of a higher authoritarian voice.

[JtotheIzzo]

Rambo, you are basically a zealot in this thread.

Aslan saying he is an academic and it is an academic paper doesn't mean he is saying it is absolute, it is simply that this is the research he has conducted and it is open to scrutiny.

You are not scrutinizing the work, you are miffed by the religion of the author.

You are thinking exactly how the media wants you to think, you are a walking drone spouting out the company line.

[chosen_one6]

Commitment? PHD? Scholarly work? Whatever dude. I'm already half way done with the book and there is nothing in there that is seminal, revolutionary, or even "scholarly" that he proposes.

The idea that Jesus is a rebel has been written, re-written, many times before by scholars like John Dear, Matthew Hoffman, and many others like them.

The difference is they don't try to slant him as a "trouble maker" or a zealot. They painted him in the picture of a saint fighting for justice and peace. That's the difference.

Aslan wants you to think he was a terrorist.

At least the others didn't shout down everybody's throat like a broken record he is right because of some lame PHD background. Unlike A*sman, they are smart enough to know that they are speaking from a position of interpretation and not that of a higher authoritarian voice.

You're an idiot.

Back then, Jesus WAS considered a zealot. Obviously now he is not. You're reading too much into what he's saying for some unknown reason.

[ballup]

Roman empire mandates that its citizens can practice any religion they desire, but they must also practice the traditional Roman one. Jesus states that there is only one God and no other. Christians stop following the aforementioned Roman law. That's pretty much a prime example of rebelling against authority. Did Jesus do it just to rebel? Probably not, but he knew the possible consequences.

Painting him only as a saint is just as biased as painting him only as a trouble maker.

[Nick Young]

Roman empire mandates that its citizens can practice any religion they desire, but they must also practice the traditional Roman one. Jesus states that there is only one God and no other. Christians stop following the aforementioned Roman law. That's pretty much a prime example of rebelling against authority. Did Jesus do it just to rebel? Probably not, but he knew the possible consequences.

Painting him only as a saint is just as biased as painting him only as a trouble maker.
Yeah Jesus was a revolutionary and zealot but in a good way, fighting for personal freedoms for the common people who the Romans walked on.

The Romans didn't treat the people they conquered that badly, but it's pretty shit they didn't allow people to worship how they pleased, Jesus saw that was a problem and started preaching it out and dealing with it.

Jesus himself was a cool guy, almost akin to Buddha and Plato, only his prime was only like 3 and a half years. However that prime wound up being one of the most dominant and influential, as we can see today.

I guess if Buddha is Bill Russell, then Plato is Hakeem and Jesus was Shaq.

[32jazz]

Dont Muslims worship Jesus as one of the prophets? Why would a muslim be biased against against Jesus when it's part of the religion to like the guy?

Ding Ding Ding!

In Islam Jesus is respected as a major Prophet . In Judaism Jesus IS & WAS ( crucifixion garbage) a major fraud.

Had this been a Jewish scholar he would never have been so disrespected although his religion considers Jesus a false messiah/ fraud ,unlike Islam(great prophet).

Had that question been asked of a Jewish scholar one may be accused of Anti semitism.

a) In Islam Jesus is a well respected prophet & forerunner to Mohammed
b)Judaism considers Jesus a complete fraud




Islamophobia & bigotry blinds those ignorant of these facts & their eagerness to kiss the pinky ring of Judaism/Israel & villify Islam/Muslims.

[LJJ]

The author comes across as very learned and reasonable in this Fox interview (and it's kind of difficult not to), but less and less so the more you let this interview go and consider the situation itself. A book about the historical Jesus versus the biblical one is preposterous.

The Bible is the source for his life. There are no contemporary accounts other than the Bible. There are a couple of wildly unreliable, third or fourth-hand mentions of Jesus by the Romans generations after his death and that's all there is to go on.

Even though he defended himself very well during the interview, the argument that it's irrelevant the author recently denounced Christianity and converted to Islam because he's an academic is naive at best.

[gigantes]

hmm, that scholar didn

[miller-time]

The author comes across as very learned and reasonable in this Fox interview (and it's kind of difficult not to), but less and less so the more you let this interview go and consider the situation itself. A book about the historical Jesus versus the biblical one is preposterous.

The Bible is the source for his life. There are no contemporary accounts other than the Bible. There are a couple of wildly unreliable, third or fourth-hand mentions of Jesus by the Romans generations after his death and that's all there is to go on.

Agreed. I don't know what is in his book, but from what I could gather from the interview is that he's using his own and other peoples interpretations of the bible and cross referencing them with histories of the roman empire to gain some sort of idea of the historical Jesus. The problem is that it is all based on the assumption that Jesus existed in some form similar to the one presented in the bible. The bible is not a historical text (which he admits) so while it may make an entertaining hypothetical, it'd be just as useful to try and understand who Hercules was by comparing The Labors of Hercules with ancient Greece in its working day.

[gigantes]

@miller-time,
you know the pool of information on jesus greatly expanded in 1948, right?

i doubt that the body of jesus scholars dispute the main facts of his life, and those are the best experts in the world on this kind of thing. else we would doubtless get at least a whiff of that through the media over these past decades.

[rufuspaul]

What some people don't understand is being Religion A doesn't mean you hate Religion B.

You can be a Democrat and not hate Republican. You can be pro Jews and still admire some of Hitler's works and the person himself. You can be a Christian and admire Buddha.



:biggums:

[FiveRings]

I don't get how he killed her?

He didn't even address any of her questions.

She kept on asking how a muslim could write a book on Jesus Christ without being biased?

He kept talking about how he is a "scholar" and has phd's.

But never addressed the fact that its not possible for him to be un-biased.

Like she said, it would be like a democrat writing a book on republicans, even if this democrat was a "Scholar" and had a phd in Republican studies, he is still biased.

Dude just kept throwing out his education, didn't address anything she asked. And he killed her? Only on ISH
Yeah, it's like one biased idiot (Reza) arguing with another biased idiot (Fox News lady). A Muslim and a Christian arguing about the legacy of a man (Jesus) who may not have even existed, and who certainly was not a god or a son of a god (whatever a god is supposed to be:confusedshrug: )

[Lebowsky]

I really don't understand people being outraged by the use of the word zealot here, to be honest. Simon the Apostle is referred to as Simon the Zealot all the time in the Bible itself.

[fiddy]

:biggums:
:confusedshrug:

[miller-time]

@miller-time,
you know the pool of information on jesus greatly expanded in 1948, right?

i doubt that the body of jesus scholars dispute the main facts of his life, and those are the best experts in the world on this kind of thing. else we would doubtless get at least a whiff of that through the media over these past decades.

What happened in 1948?

But I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist at all, just the version in the bible is probably not that accurate. As far as I know. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[rufuspaul]

:confusedshrug:


I can see how Christians can admire Buddha, Muslims admire Jesus, etc, but Jews and Hitler? That's a stretch.

[ace23]

lol

Okay sweetheart, do I need to spell it out for you?

Its not possible for anyone to write an un-biased book about Jesus Christ. Even if you are just talking about him as a historical human being, not the son of god.

It was a stupid question in the first place, and his answer was even stupider, because he didn't even answer her question, that's why she kept asking it.

Answer my question please, how did he kill her? and how can he not be biased? Ill wait.
Lol, if you want to get that technical, no one can write an unbiased book on any social/historical issue. Everyone has preconceptions.

[iamgine]

I can see how Christians can admire Buddha, Muslims admire Jesus, etc, but Jews and Hitler? That's a stretch.
Hitler did some impressive stuff that wasn't related to Jews at all.

[TheMan]

Calling people names and using smiley faces really proves your point very well.

Don't worry about addressing any of the questions, or information put forth. Just name-call and use smiley faces.
Wasn't it this dude Know1edge who told his Spanish friend in another thread that he wasn't white because he was from Spain:roll:

I think he should change his nic to 1gnorance

[Pointguard]

Ding Ding Ding!

In Islam Jesus is respected as a major Prophet.


I was a bit confused as to why he just didn't say that? Its ok to write about a book about one of their prophets. They are just not into the resurrection aspect.

[iamgine]

I was a bit confused as to why he just didn't say that? Its ok to write about a book about one of their prophets. They are just not into the resurrection aspect.
Hmm then the interviewer could ask: "Well your book contradict the Qur'an so being a muslim do you then think at least some part of the Qur'an is false."

[rufuspaul]

Hitler did some impressive stuff that wasn't related to Jews at all.


Like...

[MavsSuperFan]

Most female news anchors got their jobs based on their appearance.

[gigantes]

What happened in 1948?

But I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist at all, just the version in the bible is probably not that accurate. As far as I know. Maybe you can enlighten me?
no, i didn

[Lakers Legend#32]

I think crust old white man Bill O'Reily's mesage to black people on race relations was prety embrasing. :facepalm

[iamgine]

Like...
like his oratorical skill.

[longtime lurker]

I was a bit confused as to why he just didn't say that? Its ok to write about a book about one of their prophets. They are just not into the resurrection aspect.

And completely go against the beliefs of the audience that Fox news panders to? Besides even if he said it they probably would have just edited it out.

[Nick Young]

Ding Ding Ding!

In Islam Jesus is respected as a major Prophet . In Judaism Jesus IS & WAS ( crucifixion garbage) a major fraud.

Had this been a Jewish scholar he would never have been so disrespected although his religion considers Jesus a false messiah/ fraud ,unlike Islam(great prophet).

Had that question been asked of a Jewish scholar one may be accused of Anti semitism.

a) In Islam Jesus is a well respected prophet & forerunner to Mohammed
b)Judaism considers Jesus a complete fraud




Islamophobia & bigotry blinds those ignorant of these facts & their eagerness to kiss the pinky ring of Judaism/Israel & villify Islam/Muslims.
Judaism considers Jesus to be a great rabbi and also one of the many false messiahs that existed around that time period.

[rufuspaul]

like his oratorical skill.


:lol


Yeah, a complete psycho that put 6 million innocent people to death but man the guy sure could give a good speech.

[ace23]

:lol


Yeah, a complete psycho that put 6 million innocent people to death but man the guy sure could give a good speech.
Do you not understand what was originally posted? Dude said that Hitler has some impressive qualities. "Oratorical skill" is one of them.

[gigantes]

Yeah, a complete psycho that put 6 million innocent people to death but man the guy sure could give a good speech.
and the one greatly enabled the other.


getting back to fox news, hitler's ability to completely capture the attention of an angry, depressed mob and turn their aggression towards his own goals was pretty outstanding. again, getting back to fox news.

[Brunch@Five]

stupid interview. Reza Aslan knew perfectly well what he was getting into (hence his very first statement iterating his academic background).
Second, the presumption that he wrote the book "as a muslim" is like someone writing a book about Reagan "as a democrat" is fallacious.
Whenever a politician writes or co-authors a book, he inevitably does so in his role as a politician, in so far in that this role is the public role par excellence and thus incompatible with any other public function (author, scholar, priest). Any public statement, spoken or written, is thus published in his role as a politician.

Religion however is private (unless you act as a public representative), so this "religious role" does not override him speaking publicly as a scholar.

Every human being has some kind of bias in matters of social, cultural and political sciences. That is the flaw inherent in these sciences. However, the spread of the scientific method to those sciences as well as the deconstructivist movement that started in France in the second half of the 20th century give good reason to not dismiss these sciences as a whole.

[32jazz]

Judaism considers Jesus to be a great rabbi and also one of the many false messiahs that existed around that time period.

Judaism considers Jesus a great Rabbi?:oldlol: That's Bull:facepalm

Quote me some Jewish scripture that makes this claim & not some Christian/Jewish scholars trying reconcile this based upon modern politics.(Jesus in the past was even viewed with hostility in Jewish circles as the reason for their persecution)


Jesus is an insignificant figure in Judaism & his entire being considered fraudulent(one of numerous False messiahs).


Jesus is mentioned nearly 30 times or so in the Koran & is a major figure & well respected prophet. Mohammed himself is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times in the Koran.

My point though if Green had repeated the insulting line of questions: "Why is a Jew interested in writing a book about Jesus" & "Why would a Jew write a book about Jesus",etc...... she would probably be looking for a job like CNN's Rick Sanchez.

[32jazz]

I was a bit confused as to why he just didn't say that? Its ok to write about a book about one of their prophets. They are just not into the resurrection aspect.

Do you think he was caught off guard a bit by the insulting questions?

Mentioning his credentials was fine ,but acknowledging Islam's respect/love for Jesus would have been more instructive.


Letting her, & Fox viewers, know that Jesus is mentioned more(about 30 times) than even Muhammad(5 or 6) in the Koran would have finished her off completely. Islam nor Muslims have an agenda against Jesus &
those I know have nothing but respect/affection for him.

Christian Right Islamophobes ignore this to spew their ignorance based upon modern Jewish/Christian alliances based upon politics/culture.


P.S. I think all Abrahamic religions are fairy tales.

[gigantes]

Jesus is mentioned nearly 30 times or so in the Koran & is a major figure & well respected prophet. Mohammed himself is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times in the Koran.
what...????

is it possible the qoran was not wholly transcribed from mohammed? or is that just because he

[nightprowler10]

What a horrible thread after page 2. :oldlol:

People don't realize the positive light Muslims in general put Jesus, Moses, and other prophets in. They generally get more respect than most famous Muslim caliphs, etc but usually not as much as Muhammad. For example, movies like the Prince of Persia and Passion of the Christ were banned in some Muslim countries for showing the likeness of Moses and Jesus in cartoon/movie form, which is a big no no is Islam. I mean not that I agree, but that is what they'd do if a movie about Muhammad was made, no matter how much it aligned itself with Islamic beliefs.

That said, I have not read the book, but to say he'd be biased against Jesus because he's Muslim is silly on so many levels. Biased against Christianity's core beliefs is much more plausible.

[nightprowler10]

what...????

is it possible the qoran was not wholly transcribed from mohammed? or is that just because he’s referred to as "prophet" a lot, not by his name?
Prophets are typically mentioned when talking about historical events, but there's not a lot of mention of Muhammad's present in comparison. Most prophets are mentioned significantly more for this reason. At a guess, Abraham, Moses, and Noah get the most mentions.

Though you might have a point about him being referred to as the prophet only. Not sure about that.

EDIT: Wiki says Moses is mentioned 136 times, Abraham 69 times, and Noah 43 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_mentioned_by_name_in_the_Quran#Prop hets

[97 bulls]

From what I saw in the Fox News interview, I see no difference between what the Author states as to what his book is about, and your typical Muslim belief.

Just the fact he feels he can write a book about Jesus, and totally eliminate the belief that hes the Messiah says a lot about his motives.

I see it as writing a book on how to build an engine and totally eliminating the engine block.

[GovernmentMan]

From what I saw in the Fox News interview, I see no difference between what the Author states as to what his book is about, and your typical Muslim belief.

Just the fact he feels he can write a book about Jesus, and totally eliminate the belief that hes the Messiah says a lot about his motives.

I see it as writing a book on how to build an engine and totally eliminating the engine block.

lol @ you

[nightprowler10]

From what I saw in the Fox News interview, I see no difference between what the Author states as to what his book is about, and your typical Muslim belief.

Just the fact he feels he can write a book about Jesus, and totally eliminate the belief that hes the Messiah says a lot about his motives.

I see it as writing a book on how to build an engine and totally eliminating the engine block.
Haha, what?

[KevinNYC]

Good conclusion, but I take issue with the belief that FOX is slanted in favour of a party, rather than the maintenance of the "two party system."

The two most popular roads to being a Republican presidential candidate are
A. hold office
B. If you lost your last election, you can work for Fox News. The following republican candidates have all worked for Fox as a way to keep their political profiles alive.

Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrinch
Mike Huckabee
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain

That's not a coincidence.

[Rasheed1]

havent seen KevinNYC around these parts for a minute..

[bluechox2]

shes just as bad as first takes black chick laker homer

[RedBlackAttack]

From what I saw in the Fox News interview, I see no difference between what the Author states as to what his book is about, and your typical Muslim belief.

Just the fact he feels he can write a book about Jesus, and totally eliminate the belief that hes the Messiah says a lot about his motives.

I see it as writing a book on how to build an engine and totally eliminating the engine block.
As an agnostic, I have a real interest in reading about Jesus as a real person who once lived and died. I find the historical truths of this figure -- how he lived, where he lived, the government which persecuted him, etc. -- very interesting. I like the idea of simply telling the story of this person, because whether you're a Christian or an Atheist, the one thing everyone agrees upon is that he was a real historical figure who was killed by the state.

Now, a book which starts from the position of, "He's the messiah" and works backwards? I have very little interest in that book.

[IamRAMBO24]

I wonder how many of you guys would feel if he simply title the book, "The 1st Terrorist: Jesus."

Don't be deceive by his definitions; his awesome, unfathom, unarguable, absolute, cogent "scholarly" views is unbias. A*sman has a PHD, he reminded us about it around 5 times in the interview.

In the end, it doesn't matter if someone claims to be an authority on a subject, claims to be a professional, claims to know their sh*t, you have to still look at the context.

The reason why I use the term "terrorism" is because that is the modern day definition of "zealot." Some posters will point to it's historical reference, but for the most part, in his book, he's trying to paint Jesus based on the modern day definition of a zealot: trouble maker who rebels against the establishment based on his fanatical religious beliefs.

I think the use of the word trouble maker is incredibly interesting because Jesus talked about rebellion and characterized satan as a rebellious figure.

I'm not even Christian, but I think his characterisation is ridiculous (although he claims to be an objective scholar); a trouble maker would be someone like Bin Laden ordering the attack on 9/11.

Jesus used peace and civil disobedience to convey Buddhist ethical ideals. He would of been against violence in any form it takes, so painting him in the same light as Bin Laden is incredibly misleading. The reason why I say that is if you read the book, a lot of analogies are being used to connect Jesus to modern day zealots (aka terrorists).

Oh yea, I'm probably wrong because he is a scholar and has a PHD, he can't possibly be biased. I'm an idiot for even questioning him.

[MMM]

From what I saw in the Fox News interview, I see no difference between what the Author states as to what his book is about, and your typical Muslim belief.

Just the fact he feels he can write a book about Jesus, and totally eliminate the belief that hes the Messiah says a lot about his motives.

I see it as writing a book on how to build an engine and totally eliminating the engine block.

haven't seen all the interviews but where did he say this, btw you do know that Muslims do accept Jesus as the messiah right

[IamRAMBO24]

haven't seen all the interviews but where did he say this, btw you do know that Muslims do accept Jesus as the messiah right

Have you read his book?

He is specifically trying to paint Jesus as nothing more than an ordinary man who is a trouble maker rebelling against the establishment base on his religious beliefs.

Since I am not a Christian, I do believe Jesus is some sort of saint (not necessarily a messiah) because of his incessant message of peace and helping the poor. He's even a step above MLK since he did not try to use acts against the law to change the establishment.

That's the slant; he wasn't a terrorist; he was a man who spoke about peace, had a bunch of followers, and that offended the establishment which had a culture of war and violence. The trouble makers were the guys who persecuted him for preaching about love and peace. That's the same thing as the Chinese massacring the Tibetans for not abiding to their communist propaganda. Calling him a fanatic zealot is the same thing as calling a Vietnamese Buddhist monk burning himself to stop a war a terrorist.

It's just ridiculous so many ISH posters are willing to support him and take what he says at face value just because he's waving his PHD around. It's like they are getting a hard on over this sh*t.

Can anyone explain to me how this is not a slant? Any takers?

[LJJ]

For reference, Reza Aslan just did an AMA on reddit where he adresses some of the problems discussed in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1jal04/i_am_reza_aslan_scholar_of_religions_author_of/

[IamRAMBO24]

For reference, Reza Aslan just did an AMA on reddit where he adresses some of the problems discussed in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1jal04/i_am_reza_aslan_scholar_of_religions_author_of/

Read the whole thing. Still sounds like a man with an agenda hiding behind his insecurities; how many times does he have to remind us he is a scholar, loves Jesus, has a PHD? He's like that one guy who says something racist and then says "Oh yea I have a lot of friends (of that race), so I can't be racist."

It's the same thing as some harvard graduate claiming he loves black people and then goes and writes a doctorate thesis about how they are a bunch of thugs leeching off of welfare. It doesn't matter how many times he feels the need to say he loves this and that and he's being fair, the sh*t he is writing (when put in it's entire context) is what really matters.

This guy is full of sh*t. Worst than Westboro.

P.S. Still hasn't explained himself. Maybe you should link him to ISH and have him defend himself.

[miller-time]

That's the slant; he wasn't a terrorist; he was a man who spoke about peace, had a bunch of followers, and that offended the establishment which had a culture of war and violence. The trouble makers were the guys who persecuted him for preaching about love and peace. That's the same thing as the Chinese massacring the Tibetans for not abiding to their communist propaganda. Calling him a fanatic zealot is the same thing as calling a Vietnamese Buddhist monk burning himself to stop a war a terrorist.

Does he specifically call him a terrorist? What acts of terror does he cite Jesus as performing. Zealot ≠ Terrorist. If he offended the establishment then why wouldn't the Roman's call him a zealot?

[gigantes]

terrorist upon the orthodox rabbinical way of life... terrorist upon local roman political stability. good points, rambo.

jesus was totally a terrorist, and maybe that's why we all love him . :cheers:

[IamRAMBO24]

terrorist upon the orthodox rabbinical way of life... terrorist upon local roman political stability. good points, rambo.

jesus was totally a terrorist, and maybe that's why we all love him . :cheers:

He's not a terrorist. That's my point. Dig through the facts; there is not one thing he preaches that encourages his followers to use violent means. He's even more of a saint than MLK because he didn't try to piss off the establishment with civil disobedience; he just preached love and peace like a Buddhist and was persecuted by it by a warlike establishment that hated that concept.

A fanatical fundamentalist who would use violent measures to carry out his religious beliefs is not an accurate depiction of Jesus.

I understand his followers totally mutilated his teachings and made him look bad, but you can't hate the man (or messiah) if you truly read his teachings and what he stood for.

[IamRAMBO24]

Does he specifically call him a terrorist? What acts of terror does he cite Jesus as performing. Zealot ≠ Terrorist. If he offended the establishment then why wouldn't the Roman's call him a zealot?

Oh yea, if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons with modern day terrorism (even the title of the book "Zealot" is actually the definition of terrorism we have characterised today).

He starts off with defining Jesus as a trouble maker (and not a saint although he was preaching love and peace), and then worked his way to paint him as a vicious fanatic rebelling against the establishment based on his views.

How anyone can say someone is a trouble maker for preaching love and peace is beyond me.

[MMM]

Oh yea, if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons with modern day terrorism (even the title of the book "Zealot" is actually the definition of terrorism we have characterised today).

He starts off with defining Jesus as a trouble maker (and not a saint although he was preaching love and peace), and then worked his way to paint him as a vicious fanatic rebelling against the establishment based on his views.

How anyone can say someone is a trouble maker for preaching love and peace is beyond me.

preaching love and peace is a sure fire way to getting killed because the establishment has always seen that as a threat. There is a long list of people who end up dead because they preach love and peace, usually shot in the head as my friend would put it.

[IamRAMBO24]

Btw, it is pretty sickening how the media (such as NPR, Daily Show, and various outlets) keep on asking him about his love for Jesus, his scholarly views, and his objective viewpoint, without going into the nitty gritty stuff and talk about what he actually wrote.

I f*cking hate Foxnews, but NPR and the Daily Show are stooping to their level by protecting this idiot.

[gigantes]

he was a terrorist in the ways that i mentioned, rambo.

what

[IamRAMBO24]

preaching love and peace is a sure fire way to getting killed because the establishment has always seen that as a threat. There is a long list of people who end up dead because they preach love and peace, usually shot in the head as my friend would put it.

I know, but the real question is should he be characterized as a "jihadist" fighting against the establishment the same way as Bin Laden has done? Sure he definitely pissed off the establishment, but if you view what he has done from a philosophical ethical perspective, it is not he who is the trouble maker, it is the establishment itself for being antithetical towards the idea of peace and love.

A*SMAN is trying to make him out as a rebellious figure along the same lines as a muslim terrorist.

That's my gripe; he's being dishonest and trying to hide behind his PHD and repeating himself like a broken record his love for Jesus.

That is a man who is insecure; a man with an agenda trying to divert the attention away from the nit and grit of his agenda.

I don't think there is one person in here who supports him who has read his book. This says a lot; I challenge the same posters to argue verbatim based on what he wrote.

[IcanzIIravor]

I know, but the real question is should he be characterized as a "jihadist" fighting against the establishment the same way as Bin Laden has done? Sure he definitely pissed off the establishment, but if you view what he has done from a philosophical ethical perspective, it is not he who is the trouble maker, it is the establishment itself for being antithetical towards the idea of peace and love.

A*SMAN is trying to make him out as a rebellious figure along the same lines as a muslim terrorist.

That's my gripe; he's being dishonest and trying to hide behind his PHD and repeating himself like a broken record his love for Jesus.

That is a man who is insecure; a man with an agenda trying to divert the attention away from the nit and grit of his agenda.

I don't think there is one person in here who supports him who has read his book. This says a lot; I challenge the same posters to argue verbatim based on what he wrote.

I think the problem is that Reza is looking at how Jesus was perceived during his time by the Romans, while you are looking at how Jesus would be compared to the current crop of so called zealots and trouble makers. In Jesus time the message he preached regarding the kingdom of heaven and how he was perceived by his followers to be the messiah would have been seen as a massive threat by the establishment. With any peace movement as well you will get the hardcore who piggy back off the movement and want to use violence to bring it about. Given that context I don't find it hard to understand what Reza is trying to do and the type of conversation he is trying to have.

[IamRAMBO24]

I think the problem is that Reza is looking at how Jesus was perceived during his time by the Romans, while you are looking at how Jesus would be compared to the current crop of so called zealots and trouble makers. In Jesus time the message he preached regarding the kingdom of heaven and how he was perceived by his followers to be the messiah would have been seen as a massive threat by the establishment. With any peace movement as well you will get the hardcore who piggy back off the movement and want to use violence to bring it about. Given that context I don't find it hard to understand what Reza is trying to do and the type of conversation he is trying to have.

I know, but we don't live in Jesus's time. You have to put it into context within modern times since the word "Zealot" has evolved into something else. So when A*sman is saying Zealot, he doesn't mean someone who is a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until ad 70.. He is literally saying, "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of his religious, political, or other ideals.

Then if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons toward modern day terrorism.

Look at the context to understand his intent; don't be deceive by the bullsh*t spewing from his mouth. It is easy to be deceive by someone who insults and says he is only doing it from a position of love and objectivity.

[MMM]

I know, but the real question is should he be characterized as a "jihadist"

Do you even understand what jihadist means???

I remember speaking to an atheist awhile back and he actually said he believes in jihad, believe it or not but blowing your self up and being a terrorist is not jihad.

[IcanzIIravor]

I know, but we don't live in Jesus's time. You have to put it into context within modern times since the word "Zealot" has evolved into something else. So when A*sman is saying Zealot, he doesn't mean someone who is a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until ad 70.. He is literally saying, "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of his religious, political, or other ideals.

Then if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons toward modern day terrorism.

Look at the context to understand his intent; don't be deceive by the bullsh*t spewing from his mouth. It is easy to be deceive by someone who insults and says he is only doing it from a position of love and objectivity.

He is comparing and contrasting between Jesus time and the hear and now. Do you think Jesus wasn't considered a zealot by the established religious leaders of his day and thus looked upon as a threat to their power and the established rule by the Romans? MLK was looked upon as a dangerous subversive by many of the power brokers in the US government during his time as well. Is he or Jesus on the same deep end as an OBL? No, but to the established government's of their time they looked upon them as being as subversive and threatening to the status quo, in spite of them preaching peace and love.

[IamRAMBO24]

He is comparing and contrasting between Jesus time and the hear and now. Do you think Jesus wasn't considered a zealot by the established religious leaders of his day and thus looked upon as a threat to their power and the established rule by the Romans? MLK was looked upon as a dangerous subversive by many of the power brokers in the US government during his time as well. Is he or Jesus on the same deep end as an OBL? No, but to the established government's of their time they looked upon them as being as subversive and threatening to the status quo, in spite of them preaching peace and love.



1. MLK is no Jesus (Jesus did not try to flame the establishment with civil disobedience).

2. Jesus is neither a Bin Laden (he did not use violent means).

Both your premises are moot because you can't get a proper grasp on your definition. You are falling victim to generalization, something A*sman is a pro at pulling off.

[rufuspaul]

The Romans didn't just haphazardly crucify people. It was reserved for "high crimes". In fact if you believe the Gospels, the Romans didn't want anything to do with Jesus, only agreeing to kill him at the urging of the high priests (of course this account is suspect and was probably included during the early days of the church when a clear separation from Judaism was desired).

If you believe Jesus existed as portrayed in the Gospels then it is obvious that he was considered a dangerous radical by both establishments: the Jewish leaders as well as the Roman occupation.

[Nick Young]

Judaism considers Jesus a great Rabbi?:oldlol: That's Bull:facepalm

Quote me some Jewish scripture that makes this claim & not some Christian/Jewish scholars trying reconcile this based upon modern politics.(Jesus in the past was even viewed with hostility in Jewish circles as the reason for their persecution)


Jesus is an insignificant figure in Judaism & his entire being considered fraudulent(one of numerous False messiahs).


Jesus is mentioned nearly 30 times or so in the Koran & is a major figure & well respected prophet. Mohammed himself is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times in the Koran.

My point though if Green had repeated the insulting line of questions: "Why is a Jew interested in writing a book about Jesus" & "Why would a Jew write a book about Jesus",etc...... she would probably be looking for a job like CNN's Rick Sanchez.
Read the Talmud, asshole. It's all there.

Jesus is considered on a similar level as Rabbi Akiva, another highly respected false messiah martyr, but not quite as great as Akiva was.

The only reason you probably haven't heard of Akiva is because the christian romans did their best to wipe him out of the history books.

[Jameerthefear]

Reza did an AMA on reddit yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1jal04/i_am_reza_aslan_scholar_of_religions_author_of/

[LJJ]

Do you even understand what jihadist means???

I remember speaking to an atheist awhile back and he actually said he believes in jihad, believe it or not but blowing your self up and being a terrorist is not jihad.

It is to the people who blow themselves up.

[Lebowsky]

Reza did an AMA on reddit yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1jal04/i_am_reza_aslan_scholar_of_religions_author_of/
I know a lot of people here love it, but I find reddit's format truly impossible to read. I've forced myself to give it a chance before, but I just can't like it.

[nightprowler10]

That is ridiculous. Karen Armstrong wrote several well-regarded books on Islam, and she was a bloody nun!

This is a very good point someone made as I was reading reddit. I think I've read her first book on Muhammad back in the 90s and it was very thorough. Never did I once think that she had some Christian bias against Islam.

[Scholar]

Man, Reza really annihilated that idiot interviewer on Fox News. I didn't expect anything less from Fox News beyond agenda-driven nonsense.

[nightprowler10]

The reddit AMA is miles better as an interview. Really makes me want to read his books.

[iamgine]

Then if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons toward modern day terrorism

Are there excepts from the book that makes you say that?

[IamRAMBO24]

Are there excepts from the book that makes you say that?

I'll start with this one.

"Granted, writing a biography of Jesus of Nazareth is not like writing a biography of Napoleon Bonaparte. The task is somewhat akin to putting together a massive puzzle with only a few of the pieces in hand; one has no choice but to fill in the rest of the puzzle based on the best, most educated guess of what the completed image should look like. "

Here is a guy who is claiming he is speaking as a scholar with a PHD dealing with only historical facts, but then he admits there are not many facts he can abide to and he has to "make an educated guess (aka subjective interpretation)" based on what he has in hand.

I'll post later when I get off of work on how he is using the ideas and historical context of the rise of modern terrorism to that of Jesus. It is just astounding how he can make these "educated guesses" to link Jesus's martydom to that of the Jews persecution from the Romans.

[TheSilentKiller]

This thread is absolutely hilarious :roll:

[Pointguard]

Do you think he was caught off guard a bit by the insulting questions?

He had to have been used to it and seen the angle coming. One doesn't go to fox expecting a red carpet.

As the poster Longtime Lurker, said it would have likely been cut out.


Mentioning his credentials was fine ,but acknowledging Islam's respect/love for Jesus would have been more instructive.

Letting her, & Fox viewers, know that Jesus is mentioned more(about 30 times) than even Muhammad(5 or 6) in the Koran would have finished her off completely. Islam nor Muslims have an agenda against Jesus &
those I know have nothing but respect/affection for him.
Unity, commonality and harmony are not the goals of fox. They don't want anybody harping on that for a minute.

[Brunch@Five]

Oh yea, if you read the book, he makes a lot of comparisons with modern day terrorism (even the title of the book "Zealot" is actually the definition of terrorism we have characterised today).

He starts off with defining Jesus as a trouble maker (and not a saint although he was preaching love and peace), and then worked his way to paint him as a vicious fanatic rebelling against the establishment based on his views.

How anyone can say someone is a trouble maker for preaching love and peace is beyond me.

Your problem is that you argue from a normative stance (Jesus should not be called a zealot) and not an analytical one that is looking to frame the issue and put its elements in proper order.
When you go on to compare him to a modern day terrorist it is clear that you have as the establishment: roman empire, jewish clergy and western politican institutions and philosophy (esp. enlightenment) respectively. Jesus and a Bin Laden are the subversive elements that threaten the existing order.

Whether you believe in either one's message or condone their means is absolutely irrelevant when you analyze the elements at hand.

[gigantes]

Your problem is that you argue from a normative stance (Jesus should not be called a zealot) and not an analytical one that is looking to frame the issue and put its elements in proper order.
When you go on to compare him to a modern day terrorist it is clear that you have as the establishment: roman empire, jewish clergy and western politican institutions and philosophy (esp. enlightenment) respectively. Jesus and a Bin Laden are the subversive elements that threaten the existing order.

Whether you believe in either one's message or condone their means is absolutely irrelevant when you analyze the elements at hand.
that's basically it. nice.

i'm willing to entertain your path of thinking, rambo, but you are sloshing and sliding around so much on the very premise that it's hard for me to want to drill through it very much.

i see you like to be a bad boy of controversial topics, and that's fine, but you seem to think that once you get to the limits of your own understanding, the ICBM of your argument is ready to be launched against the world.

well, yea... it is ISH, after all. hmm...

[reppy]

I wonder if any Fox News reporter has asked this sort of question to any man that supports restricting a woman's access to birth control.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Your problem is that you argue from a normative stance (Jesus should not be called a zealot) and not an analytical one that is looking to frame the issue and put its elements in proper order.
When you go on to compare him to a modern day terrorist it is clear that you have as the establishment: roman empire, jewish clergy and western politican institutions and philosophy (esp. enlightenment) respectively. Jesus and a Bin Laden are the subversive elements that threaten the existing order.

Whether you believe in either one's message or condone their means is absolutely irrelevant when you analyze the elements at hand.This. Gandhi was s trouble maker too, at least in the perspective of the British.