TYT Interview with Reza Aslan, Author of 'Zealot'

amadain17

Hi
Within the last few months author Reza Aslan went on Fox news to promote his book on Jesus and the interview was described as the worst television intervision interview ever on many blogs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s

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

Well Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks interviewed him recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6E4eMX-4k

He has some very interesting things to say about Jesus and not much stacks up to the modern view. Bet this cheesed off some rampant Christians.

A

m4smith

I am a Christian and a Catholic, I saw the interview and then bought the book. Its actually very good, Reza (who is a professor of Religion"S") Simply wrote a book about the Historical Figure of Jesus. Its not an attack on Faith because he himself says so in the book, its about the historical figure.

Reza is an Iranian Muslim, but he does not hold the Muslim view that Jesus was not Crucified. His book is centred around the fact that Jesus was Crucified and that tells a lot about Jesus the Man.

I am glad Fox did such a bad interview, because otherwise the Author would not have come known.

Does Reza challenge many Christian views about Jesus, yes, But it is an academic book with conclusions he has come to from his own study.

amadain17

Did you watch the young Turks interview?

He more or less confirms from his academic study on the issue that none of the deeds or words attributed to Jesus in the bible can be trusted as anything other than allegorical. This leads one to question what the faith in Christianity is based upon. The entire Old Testament is allegory and now the New Testament. Surely Christian faith is analogous to believing in fairytales.

I was a Christian and a Catholic but when I found out how little historical fact there was in any of the Bible I questioned faith based on a foundation of sand. If you couple that with science constantly revising and explaining naturally what was formerly attributed to God you have to question the existence of God.

It has been said that faith is believing when no evidence is available and it has also been said that this is a good thing to be faithful like this (both are heard in religious circles) but I find it hard to distinguish faith from gullibility when they are presented side-by-side. When science steps in and shows how God is now a stop-gap between scientifically verifiable natural phenomena its hard to understand why anybody would or could still believe in the existence of anything supernatural.

A

m4smith

amadain17 wrote: »

Did you watch the young Turks interview?

He more or less confirms from his academic study on the issue that none of the deeds or words attributed to Jesus in the bible can be trusted as anything other than allegorical. This leads one to question what the faith in Christianity is based upon. The entire Old Testament is allegory and now the New Testament. Surely Christian faith is analogous to believing in fairytales.

I was a Christian and a Catholic but when I found out how little historical fact there was in any of the Bible I questioned faith based on a foundation of sand. If you couple that with science constantly revising and explaining naturally what was formerly attributed to God you have to question the existence of God.

It has been said that faith is believing when no evidence is available and it has also been said that this is a good thing to be faithful like this (both are heard in religious circles) but I find it hard to distinguish faith from gullibility when they are presented side-by-side. When science steps in and shows how God is now a stop-gap between scientifically verifiable natural phenomena its hard to understand why anybody would or could still believe in the existence of anything supernatural.

A

Correct. Reza challenges many Christian views. However is his work a Muslim biased book about Christ? No, its his historical view from the sources he has available.

I welcome his views, because it will make people THINK!!!!. Reza is not an agnostic or Atheist, he is a firm believer in God.

I personally did not find much in his book that I did not already know. But I am glad he has entered the debate. I think FOX were total idiots.

m4smith

Just wanted to add regards Reza's book. Many today look for proof when our modern concept of proof or history is alien to what would have existed 2000 years ago. Historical evidence is a concept that is from the last 300 years, this concept did not exist as 2000 years ago.

To understand Christ and his era you have to think like those who lived during his era. Are the Gospels and exact account of Jesus's life? No they are an interpretation written from the accounts of those who were there. An artists impression.

So if you are searching for God, try to understand from the point of view of those who lived 2000 years ago.

Brown Bomber

That FOX host is a good example of how radical atheists and radical Christians merge their ignorant opinions on Islam.

This from the FOX host could've come from Atheist Ireland tm

Is there something in Islam itself that makes believers more susceptible to
radicalization?... I believe essentially there are three things that may make
Islam more prone to radicalization. One is the Koran itself. The fact that it's
not a narrative makes it easier to pick and choose verses to fit your
interpretation. Two, the Prophet Mohammed's own words and deeds. In Islam's
early days, Mohammed spread the faith with the sword. Three, Islam was
introduced into a world rife with tribalism; a shame and honor culture which
revered and respected power. Much of what's going in Libya and what went on
under Saddam Hussein, are extensions of that tribalism.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2013/0728/Can-Muslims-write-about-Christianity#.UfWLrTgiJYo.twitter

Wibbs

m4smith wrote: »

Reza is an Iranian Muslim, but he does not hold the Muslim view that Jesus was not Crucified.

This should have been enough to show he wasn't trying to rewrite christianity from an islamic perspective. Then again that would have required a level of knowledge rarely if ever found in Fox mouthpieces

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That FOX host is a good example of how radical atheists and radical Christians merge their ignorant opinions on Islam.

This from the FOX host could've come from Atheist Ireland tm

Ignore the source and save for the daft Libyan reference how is it inaccurate exactly? From the very get go and from the founder of the faith itself Islam has been the most martial and political mainstream faith out there. Christianity, hell even Buddhism became that way at various times, but they didn't kick off that way.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That FOX host is a good example of how radical atheists and radical Christians merge their ignorant opinions on Islam.

.....good to see we've put aside wild generalisations and are using the precise language of informed debate.

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

Ignore the source and save for the daft Libyan reference how is it inaccurate exactly? From the very get go and from the founder of the faith itself Islam has been the most martial and political mainstream faith out there. Christianity, hell even Buddhism became that way at various times, but they didn't kick off that way.

Nobody could read the Quran and Exodus and then honestly claim that Moses, Judaism's most important Prophet and writer of the Torah is less warlike or violent than than Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

In any case the issue in the case of the claims of the Fox News host is removing all historical context of the events of 15 hundred years ago and insinuating a correlation between the violence and battles of that time and the Muslim living next door to you in modern times who wishes you a good morning each day.

This is reinforced by further levels bull**** by ignoring the political context of any act of violenct resistance committed by a Muslim against a "white" man to perceived oppression and/or injustice. For example, The "Islamic Terrorist" the Times Square Bomber was motivated into carrying out his attack during a visit home to his homeland in the tribal regions of Pakistan when he witnessed the effects of the US drone strikes on his people.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

.....good to see we've put aside wild generalisations and are using the precise language of informed debate.

You'll find I did use specific language - "radical atheists" and "radical Christians". Not sure which of these you felt the need to rush to the defense of though...

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'll find I did use specific language - "radical atheists" and "radical Christians".

Probably better to refer to the first lot as "like, those atheists who are, like, totally radical, dude".

It's much more specific and suggests that these fine people might enjoy a good beer or a long, slow drag on a spliff. It'll also probably avoid mixing these fine people up with radical religionists, some of whom have a distressing habit of going around the place, blowing up people and things. Dreadful lot, that latter group.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Probably better to refer to the first lot as "like, those atheists who are, like, totally radical, dude".

It's much more specific and suggests that these fine people might enjoy a good beer or a long, slow drag on a spliff. It'll also probably avoid mixing these fine people up with radical religionists, some of whom have a distressing habit of going around the place, blowing up people and things. Dreadful lot, that latter group.

Not sure why this is causing such confusion. My use of "radical atheists" was contrary to whatever Nodin has dreamed up was to avoid generalising and tarring everyone with the same brush.

A "radical atheist" is part of a fringe subdivision of atheists who are obsessively militant in their antitheism.

My point was that these atheist extremists views and talking points on Islam generally parallel with their supposed sworn enemies the Conservative Christian extremists

Cork boy 55

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(.)

My point was that these atheist extremists views and talking points on Islam generally parallel with their supposed sworn enemies the Conservative Christian extremists

This is not logically

A says B because of C
D says B because of E

B = B

but

A =/= D

nor is

C =/= E

amadain17

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That FOX host is a good example of how radical atheists and radical Christians merge their ignorant opinions on Islam.

This from the FOX host could've come from Atheist Ireland tm

So is atheist Ireland a radical group? Dunno what a radical atheist is but there is a clue in what you mean here:

A "radical atheist" is part of a fringe subdivision of atheists who are obsessively militant in their antitheism.

So you are mixing up antitheist with atheist. Antitheism is a subdivision of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven. Atheism simply that theism has not been proven. The distinction is subtle but significant. One is a claim in itself and the other is a response to a claim.

An atheist will respond 'show me evidence' to the claim that any god exists while an antitheist will make the claim than no god exists and will therefore have a burden of proof.

A

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My point was that these atheist extremists views and talking points on Islam generally parallel with their supposed sworn enemies the Conservative Christian extremists

So what?

Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not sure why this is causing such confusion. My use of "radical atheists" was contrary to whatever Nodin has dreamed up was to avoid generalising and tarring everyone with the same brush.

A "radical atheist" is part of a fringe subdivision of atheists who are obsessively militant in their antitheism.

My point was that these atheist extremists views and talking points on Islam generally parallel with their supposed sworn enemies the Conservative Christian extremists

...what about "those atheists such as (give names) that seem obsessed with all things Islamic and little else"...

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

...what about "those atheists such as (give names) that seem obsessed with all things Islamic and little else"...

Sam Harris would be a good example.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sam Harris would be a good example.

...Condell, I was thinking of.

Brown Bomber

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

This is not logically

A says B because of C
D says B because of E

B = B

but

A =/= D

nor is

C =/= E

So you don't deny the considerable common ground re Islam between the lunatic fringes of the Christian Right and large swathes of hardcore atheists?

Is this convergence unique or are there other religious matters that unite these groups? Is it the case that the hatred by the lunatics from the Christian Right is rational or is the hatred by atheists towards Muslims an irrrational hatred?

Brown Bomber

amadain17 wrote: »

So is atheist Ireland a radical group?

I would say so, yes, though largely harmless. Any group that tries to come between an old lady and the comfort she may get from a mass card has lost the plot.

if they genuinely cared about minorities in education in Irelandt hey wouldn't be wasting money hosting back-slapping "world conferences" and hiring celebrities to speak at their events. They could have actually improved some peoples lives by raising the seed money for a foundation that supports the adult education of travellers - or something like that.

Rather than that they give a platform to Communists who support violent revolution and who has taken up the fearmongering reins in the UK of the white-supremacist and Islamophobic lawyer David Yerushalmi by focusing on the non-existent threat of Sharia Courts in the UK.

Atheist Ireland...Radical? Yes. Harmless? Largely. Pointless? Yes.

Gumbi

m4smith wrote: »

Just wanted to add regards Reza's book. Many today look for proof when our modern concept of proof or history is alien to what would have existed 2000 years ago. Historical evidence is a concept that is from the last 300 years, this concept did not exist as 2000 years ago.

To understand Christ and his era you have to think like those who lived during his era. Are the Gospels and exact account of Jesus's life? No they are an interpretation written from the accounts of those who were there. An artists impression.

So if you are searching for God, try to understand from the point of view of those who lived 2000 years ago.

Do you know what "proof" means?

In any case, there most certainly existed historians at the time of Jesus, none of whom referred to him in their works. There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible (can this even be considered contemporary? The Gospels were written, minimally 30 - 40 years after his death, right?). Josephus refers to "the man called Christ", and this is considered a potential forgery I believe? Not too sure about that.

In any case, your wild assumption that "the concept of proof only appeared 300 years ago" is utterly false.