|Mother_Puncher - 2013-07-28 |
Aaaaaand their audience doesn't care if he defended himself, how well composed he was or that he is a scholar and not writing a book of hatred towards Jesus at all. The questions and attitude of the interviewer were spun in a way to passively attack him so their audience of cattle get riled up because all they took away from this was "DIRTY MUSLIMS TALKIN BOUT JESUS DEMOCRATS RONALD REAGAN"
She wasn't all that passive.
|godot - 2013-07-28 |
Both seem noxious: arguments from authority are tiresome.
Anyway, the credulity implied in identifying with any of these faiths diminishes Aslan's academic authority. Read Bart Ehrman instead.
Is it really an appeal to authority if you're answering allegations that you're not a scholar with your scholarly credentials though?
Citing your academic credentials when someone accuses you of being a Muslim spy is an argument from authority, and having a religion while studying religion invalidates your historical research.
I'm just making sure that's what you said.
|jangbones - 2013-07-28 |
|Kabbage - 2013-07-28 |
Holy christ, he destroyed her
The part where he just accuses her outright of not having read the book.
Sexy Duck Cop
"You're putting yourself out there as....I don't know, a scholar or something....but why not get an outside observer to write this book instead? Why couldn't this be written by some sort of paradoxical being that exists in a state of quantum flux that at once has never heard of any religion yet is an expert in religion?"
I feel like if you were married to this woman, this would be the style in which absolutely everything was discussed. A wholly unrelated farce of a conversation, doggedly driven toward a single desired outcome, into which you need only play your part.
|bac - 2013-07-28 |
Saw this guy on the Daily Show. it was pretty good.
Also, I guess the show is supposed to be a debate format. but christ was that reporter awful.
Sexy Duck Cop
I think you're confusing debate with passive aggression.
|paparatti - 2013-07-28 |
A conversation between two people who really don't want to be there.
|posertom - 2013-07-29 |
He was begging the shit out of that question.
|Yellow Lantern - 2013-07-29 |
In just about any other context, his tone would seem arrogant and condescending, but here, he is basically just pleading with the interviewer to be intellectually honest.
Compare with bobby jindal.
|DriverStabby - 2013-07-29 |
2:35 in, and I still wasn't sure this wasn't an Onion piece.
I'm amazed he never brought up the fact that Jesus is also part of the Muslim faith.
The fact that he believes in any of those stupid ridiculous bullshit made up religions compromises his credibility as a religious scholar.
He wrote the book based on process of elimination.
If he wrote a book critical of Islam, he'd be blown up.
If he wrote a book critical of Judaism, it would be unpublishable in the West.
And who really cares about the Buddists? All they do is help people and try to diminish suffering, so they are of no value or interest to anyone.
The Neo-American Church and the Church of Secular Humanism are the only acceptable religions.
I mean the Art Kleps NAC obviously, not that other one.
|spikestoyiu - 2013-07-29 |
I like how her quote was taken from a Fox News blogger.
|chumbucket - 2013-07-29 |
When this turns into a pop-up book, I'll read it.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2013-07-29 |
This woman did a horrible job of reporting but a great job of Fox News reporting.
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2013-07-30 |
Well that reporter certainly Palined that interview, didn't she.
Also, Jesus never existed. It's just a story and find his search for the historical Jesus to be just as amusing as people looking for Bigfoot.
The idea that there was no historical Jesus is pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Virtually everyone who's researched religion agrees there was a Jesus.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|