WAG Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) Hmm, a neo-conservative magazine lamenting Aslan. Interesting... "Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework"" The point of my post was to show the blatant effort of Fox to create an issue out of an educated Muslim writing a book on a Christian god. Though I don't condone his choice of language on Twitter, those examples in your article were almost certainty cherry picked to promote the author's image of Aslan. Hmm, the liberal media slamming Fox and propping up an anti-Christian book, shocker... - If he makes his living as a professor of religion he would be a professor of religion, not an associate professor of creative writing. - If he was an expert in the New Testament he would have a PhD in Religion with a focus on the New Testament, and not in Sociology with an emphasis on Islam. There's a reason those pursuing a doctorate are held to a higher standard. In the world of academia, everyone knows master's degrees don't mean shit, sorry... If you think all this makes him an expert scholar on the subject of Jesus and the New Testament, you're misguided. Look, I'll even link unfavorable review from an actual NT scholar on a lefty website which discusses plenty of problems with the book: https://www.huffingto..._b_3679466.html TL/DR: " At the same time, I have some serious reservations about Aslan's portrait of Jesus, and I suspect that most professional biblical scholars will share some of them. First, the book contains some outright glitches, things a professional scholar would be unlikely to say." I think it's perfectly fair for a journalist to ask why someone of a different religion would be motivated to write a book about another religion (that goes for a Christian writing about Islam). Simple question: are you biased? Is it possible to be objective on a subject matter that is very personal and goes against your deeply held beliefs? Hmmm....I'm doubtful. However, when you publish something under the guise of "scholarly/historian" work, your credentials, motives, thesis, background, religion, twitter comments, and blogging are all fair game for review. How you find that kind of stuff irrelevant is beyond me. I've read enough reviews to get the gist of this book. Consensus: he wrote a well articulated opinion on Jesus. One that is commonly held by many Muslims. Nothing new but I have no problem with people reading this book. Nevertheless, I think he clearly has a dog in the fight (an agenda) against Christianity. I beg to ask why he wrote this book when he isn't an actual scholar on this subject matter. He is an expert on several other things (Islam, history of Jihad) on which he could have written and had more credibility. Why did he pick this subject? He can scream all he wants reminding people of his 4 degrees (kind of odd) but his most important degree, the PhD, does not "anoint" him as a scholar and expert "historian" on the subject of Jesus Christ (Islam, definitely). Dude, he even misrepresented being a professor of religion! That screams of desperation. Furthermore, busdriver, he IS an arrogant ass that vehemently rejects opposing viewpoints, so that doesn't help his credibility either... One takeaway, I think it's great we live in a country where his viewpoints are not only embraced, but are marketed and published. There is no way this shit would fly in any Muslim country if it were the other way around. His head would roll, literally. I find that ironic. Standing by on the new thread creation in 3...2....1 Edited August 1, 2013 by WAG
sky_king Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 A woman adding a quart of oil to her car... She's doing it right. You gotta spread it around so it gets to the roots evenly.
HerkFE Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) She's doing it right. Except, she should have taken her shirt off. ETA: WTF is she doing out of the kitchen anyway? Edited August 1, 2013 by HerkFE 4
FUSEPLUG Posted August 1, 2013 Posted August 1, 2013 ETA: WTF is she doing out of the kitchen anyway? It's cool, she's using cooking oil. 1
Fuzz Posted August 2, 2013 Posted August 2, 2013 https://www.wisn.com/news/armed-agents-raid-animal-shelter-for-baby-deer/-/9373668/21272108/-/item/0/-/13d8x2mz/-/index.html The stupidity is overwhelming.
SocialD Posted August 2, 2013 Posted August 2, 2013 (edited) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/ So, the term citizen is now offensive? WTF!??! Edited August 2, 2013 by SocialD
10percenttruth Posted August 2, 2013 Posted August 2, 2013 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/ So, the term citizen is now offensive? WTF!??! I'm WAY more offended by the term "sack lunch" than I am about "brown-bag"
Hueypilot Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 https://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/03/veterans-sue-city-in-new-york-that-ordered-flag-down/?test=latestnews Veterans sue city in New York that ordered 'Don't Tread on Me' down Ok I agree with the vet group that this is a historical US flag and its not the Tea Party's flag, but they are glossing over something else that's disturbing. Essentially the city of New Rochelle is banning any association with a political organization such as the Tea Party. Isn't that illegal and a violation of free speech? You can't ban a political party or movement's symbols and likeness just because you don't like or agree with them. And it's not like they are the Nazi party, although I would bet money that some of the very liberal types would say they are (despite the ironic fact that those liberals are engaging in the very tactics Nazis used).
Spinner Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 despite the ironic fact that those liberals are engaging in the very tactics Nazis used). Hey, you can't fix stupid...
Vertigo Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 Essentially the city of New Rochelle is banning any association with a political organization such as the Tea Party. Isn't that illegal and a violation of free speech? You can't ban a political party or movement's symbols and likeness just because you don't like or agree with them. And it's not like they are the Nazi party, although I would bet money that some of the very liberal types would say they are (despite the ironic fact that those liberals are engaging in the very tactics Nazis used). It's a city owned property. They didn't ban the flag from a private organization or residence. They banned it from ITS OWN PROPERTY- which they are allowed to do.
M2 Posted August 3, 2013 Posted August 3, 2013 It's a city owned property. They didn't ban the flag from a private organization or residence. They banned it from ITS OWN PROPERTY- which they are allowed to do. Ummmm....doesn't city property belong to its citizens? And sorry, but I don't exactly see this as being a "symbol" of the Tea Party... Actually, that flag was flown by deployed SEAL unit aboard the USS Orion in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea during DESERT STORM. I know how giddy liberals get when they think they're getting the better of some conservatives; but this is ridiculous. Honestly, I wonder why the elected officials of New Rochelle are even addressing this in the first place...is this the most urgent issue they have on their plates?!? 1
matmacwc Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 Dudes, it goes WAY back, the liberal idiots just think it is Tea Party only. M2 is correct, the government should be ours, not a vocal minority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Navy_Jack
Hueypilot Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 It's a city owned property. They didn't ban the flag from a private organization or residence. They banned it from ITS OWN PROPERTY- which they are allowed to do. Well maybe then in your opinion it would be ok for the Dem-majority Federal Govt to ban any GOP symbolism...or any other political movement. And I agree with the others...govt property is "our" property. Telling people that certain political persuasions aren't allowed flies in the face of our free and open society. 1
matmacwc Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 And it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion......but that's a whole different thread.
amcflyboy Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 Its New York...glad I'm not a citizen of that state anymore! 'Nuff said! 1
Vertigo Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 IF it was a Tea Party flag (and some would argue it has become a de facto symbol of the tea party) the CITY cannot be seen as endorsing one party over any other party. The USAF is government property, thus our property, in your arguments. Should we remain neutral or should we be flying political party flags for whatever party is in control at the moment-thereby making it appear we are endorsing that party?And it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion......but that's a whole different thread. So only religious people should have freedom in that aspect. Everyone else should have religion forced upon them. Noted.
M2 Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 C'mon Vertigo, even you have to admit that connecting that particular flag to the Tea Party is a huge stretch...
theat6bisasham Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 IF it was a Tea Party flag (and some would argue it has become a de facto symbol of the tea party) the CITY cannot be seen as endorsing one party over any other party. The USAF is government property, thus our property, in your arguments. Should we remain neutral or should we be flying political party flags for whatever party is in control at the moment-thereby making it appear we are endorsing that party? So only religious people should have freedom in that aspect. Everyone else should have religion forced upon them. Noted. So if my new raging liberal political group that endorses fire-bombing abortion clinic adopts the USAF symbol as my defacto flag, is the USAF going to remove it from it's own property so as not to appear to endorse me? This is a interesting thought...lol actually scratch that, my new political party is taking up the reflective belt as our symbol....
theSituation Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 So if my new raging liberal political group that endorses fire-bombing abortion clinic adopts the USAF symbol as my defacto flag, is the USAF going to remove it from it's own property so as not to appear to endorse me? This is a interesting thought...lol actually scratch that, my new political party is taking up the reflective belt as our symbol.... Liberals fire-bombing abortion clinics? I don't get it...
PapaJu Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 IF it was a Tea Party flag (and some would argue it has become a de facto symbol of the tea party) the CITY cannot be seen as endorsing one party over any other party. Yes, the Tea Party has significantly increased the flag's usage since 2008. That doesn't change the fact that it has a longstanding, non-partisan place in American history (well, at least in the left/right sense). Would it have been ok if they flew the US Navy jack instead?
Vertigo Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 (edited) C'mon Vertigo, even you have to admit that connecting that particular flag to the Tea Party is a huge stretch... Google image search the following phrase: tea party flags Tell me what 50-75% of the images come up as as you scroll down. Or better yet, go online shopping for Tea Party flags. https://www.gettysburgflag.com/TEA-Party.php https://www.sevenbros.com/index.php?cPath=95_313 https://www.flagsimporter.com/american/index.php/cName/tea-party-flags I know it's wiki- but still. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag#Tea_Party_Movement_symbol Edited August 4, 2013 by Vertigo
Goblin Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 You mean theres a tiny paragraph about the tea party at the very end of a long and detailed wiki article about the overall history of the flag? I'm convinced. 2
Vertigo Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 You mean theres a tiny paragraph about the tea party at the very end of a long and detailed wiki article about the overall history of the flag? I'm convinced. Exactly right. The length of the article being reported determines truth.
WAG Posted August 4, 2013 Posted August 4, 2013 Exactly right. The length of the article being reported determines truth. Which doesn't explain why you chose to ignore 90% of your link's relevant truth...Noted.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now