I don't see where I defend the stupidity and ignorance of the line of questioning. (Once it gets stupid and ignorant, that is.)

Well fret, when you're talking about his qualifications, how are you treating the book? I don't think it's a 'scholarly' work as such, definitely seems of a more popular bent (otherwise why be on Fox News at all?). Given your academic background, I'm sure knowing koine is no big whoop, but compared to the stuff viewers of that program might normally be expected to read, Aslan's got to be at least competent, wouldn't you think?

Sure. And as I said - my only point, really, was that I didn't understand the echo this received in the media today. Until a few hours ago, I neither knew this guy (nor his book) existed. I have no opinion of the book, though, when he starts noting the 100 pages of endnotes and the 1000 cites (or was it sources?), I'm getting sceptical. (When he claims that he notes "everyone" that agrees and disagrees with him, technically he's either lying or acknowledging poor scholarly judgement, as obv. part of good science is the judgement call of who to cite/reference. In reality it's probably just another attempt of his to present his scholarly credentials - which is obv. fine, but (imo) misguided in what he ideally can hope to achieve in appearing on fox.)

--

I ran across this clip this morning when my brother posted it on FB and my impression was that he didn't present himself very well - and that the LOLnews anchor lady obviously had no clue. I don't expect any different from her, but I would expect a muslim scholar who writes a supposedly-somewhat-contentious book about Jesus to have some kind of game plan when he goes onto fox.

So I would've expected him to not try to play the "I'm really an expert" card because who the hell cares about expertise on fox? I would also expectd him to anticipate that the questions will be lolsome and have handy spin-off phrases at the ready to go from the obv. questions to the heart of the matter. I felt - from the first half that I watched - that he didn't do a good job with that, especially once they both try to talk over each other. Which is basically why I didn't think the vid was any more than a bad interviewer with a non-great interviewee on a tendentious network.

I mean, once we subtract her cluelessness and his non-brilliant presentation of himself and his book, this is just one of many instances of bigoted, ignorant and right-wing catering Fox being bigoted, ignorant and right-wing catering. So why the particular outrage?

I'm not outraged, personally, I'm amused.

Yup, seems like a much more appropriate reaction.

Anyway, Evolution VS God by Ray Comfort is available for free on You Tube.

I'm pretty disappointed in Myers and others that they can't see what Comfort is doing to them. His question places an unreasonable demand on the evidence. If macroevolution happened over millions of years, say, how am I supposed to present "observable" evidence of it happening? I can provide evidence, and loads of it from different disciplines. We are essentially doing historical research, and nobody demands that we produce real-time video coverage of Alexander the Great in order to determine that he existed. Or nobody will believe that I have been created by supernatural means just because I say so. I suppose, using his logic, he can reasonably doubt that I grew up to be a man by natural means just because he couldn't observe my growth process at every single moment.

Still, it's pretty funny, the video. He is right about the students just kinda taking things on faith, as was apparent, because they obviously have no clue, any more than he does.

http://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ

Edit: It is startling that so many confessed outright that they would save their dog rather than a drowning neighbor. At least I think so, and I'm a dog lover.

Dog owners love their dogs. They don't even know a complete stranger, so how could they love them? Christianity proclaims they must, but it is not possible to love someone you do not even know, and (imo) this dilutes the idea of love.
So, I don't think these answers are unexpected. If they think about their dog being gone it would be v upsetting to them. If they think about a stranger being gone, how can they feel the same?
The problem with the argument is that it might not be remotely accurate to an actual scenario.

I didn't post the Ray Comfort video because it was so bad and so predictable (and assumed someone else would anyway). When you say "they obviously have no clue, any more than he does", I would go so far as to say that Comfort should have much more of a clue than they do, as he has had his false views corrected countless times by experts. He knows he is presenting a straw-evolution argument, but continues to do so.

Ray Comfort is not a good person, and this 'movie' is no more than a longer version of his YT rants, I think you would agree.

Because Christ is a symbol of the Other, and to love Christ entails such a love. "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me". And I think Christianity teaches that it is impossible without God to love in this way, and maybe even the greatest only reaches it asymptotically (if you'll forgive the phrase) but it is the work of the Spirit.

I personally do not experience this as being a dilution but as being something wonderfully fulfilling and expansive and meaningful and joyful, even if it's also often a struggle. Don't mean to sound too preachy there but it's such a core part of Christianity to me and I don't know how to talk about it otherwise

Since this isn't a discussion thread, I don't want to start a discussion off here (but it's probably Ok for both of us to clarify a little).

I'm afraid I just didn't understand your reply, particularly the first paragraph (scripture out of context may as well be in the original Greek, as far as I can understand the meaning). Are you saying that in order to love Jesus, you would need to love your fellow humans, or that you would already love your fellow humans? Regardless, even as an atheist I can see that a Christian can say they love [the representation of] Jesus but in what way does that translate into actually loving your fellow humans?

I don't think someone can love a person they do not even know, and that including anyone and everyone dilutes it's meaning. I will add a cultural observation, Americans appear to say "I love you" to a much wider group of people than I have ever been able to really understand.

The passage is Matthew 25:31-46. Sorry I should have provided a reference the first time

The former is closer: both Jesus and the apostles speak of love of God and love of neighbor as being intimately connected, and that was the point of the reference to Matthew 25, but there are other examples. But also there is an idea that there is a real transformation of a human being that occurs when you attempt to love others universally, because this kind of love is from God and in some metaphysical way creates a connection with God. So Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

It's likely that we are understanding love slightly differently, which isn't a shock, it's a fairly broad word with a lot of different meanings and connotations. At least in the religious sense it doesn't always mean some kind of close personal emotional thing though.

Rather than trying to define love as it's used in the new testament, it's easier to give examples of things that are called loving: to be kind, patient, to always give the benefit of the doubt, to wish for the best for the other, to be forgiving, and to be self-sacrificing for their benefit. To place the other's needs and desires and benefit ahead of one's own. Those are all things that don't require intimate knowledge of the other to attempt, they aren't primarily driven by emotion, and they also are as much about a discipline of oneself and a curtailing of your own ego as they are about the other.

Different intensities of meaning, I can't really argue with that. I personally reserve it for someone whose needs and well-being you put ahead of your own, and if you are say, kind to someone, then you are "just" being kind. But Ok.

Anyway...love you, bye.

it's a good succinct definition of love. But the point is that Jesus taught that you should put the needs and well being of everyone else ahead of your own

My point was that I don't think it is possible to put the needs and well being of someone you do not know ahead of your own (except in a superficial way). More practically, what Jesus taught and what Christians actually do: how far apart are they?

But whatevs, it's just a thought I carry around.

What about this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Kravinsky

Not only did he donate the majority of his money he gave a kidney to a stranger. He no longer has a kidney to donate to a child and if his fails he needs one. This doesn't seem superficial.

Perhaps some mod should excise this so that we don't spam the video thread, but the christian would usually claim that being "just" kind is done because of some higher-order principle. They would call that "love" - you might call it (if we follow the trail long enough) "respect for his dignity as a human being" or something.

Also, people put other's well-being before their own all the time. Whenever someone is running into the street to protect someone from an approaching car, or some guy is trying to get someone out of a burning car or w/e. Happens all the time (just think of soldiers in war protecting civillians etc.).

Sure are a lot of words for a video thread.

Anyone see this movie yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PWFEeRApA

Not out until next year, but wow. They got Hercules and Superman.

I'll just throw my hat in the ring here and now and guess that the film ends with the student losing the debate, the girl, his faith and everything else, and the final scene is him sitting on a litter-strewn beachfront, staring at the cloud-flecked sky and wondering if it's even worth continuing to live. Roll credits. Practically writes itself, right?

nonono, thats only half way through the movie! Hes at rock bottom, questioning everything, lost everything, and then he finds out that his ex girlfriend is very ill! Medicine has tried everything and failed, so as a last resort he screams out to god in agony that he needs to make her better. Then he organises a prayer meeting for his girlfriend, getting people to pray 24 hours a day for her, at first no one comes, but his example of spending all day praying brings one or two more people to pray, then more and more, until finally his whole class is there. His professor wonders why no one has come to his class, and goes to look for them, finds them all praying, is brought to tears, realises that he doesnt hate god after all, but really loves him, and so he humbly joins the back of the class in praying for the girl.

As the night is falling nearly everyone has left the prayer room, and then you hear a door open and you see the ex girlfriend, looking pale and mystical. They embrace and sit in the moonlight together, and everyone who was watching the movie leaves the cinema feeling uplifted but vaguely uneasy.

And that professor's name? Albert Einstein.

Hmmm that could work. We should pitch this to some hollywood execs, Im sure there would be a big market for this!

Gold

Interesting and thoughtful summary of how NT scholarship has changed since the 1970s.

The historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection that even skeptics believe, by Gary Habermas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

MacArthur's sermon on the "Blasphemy of the Rich Young Ruler":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on8nK9LCL28