For those who defend Fox News

[Tuberski]

Please. Tons of interviews (edit: ok, maybe this is just an American thing. It happens all the time on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox) ask silly opening questions in order to get the interviewee to turn aside viewer expectation. His launching into "I have 4 PHDs" just came across as ridiculously smarmy. I didn't get a good impression at all of him from the interview.

What was he supposed to say?"Nu-uhh"?

ACK!

[kentonio]

Have you?

Nope, that's why I'm not passing any judgement on his work.

[The Mad Monk]

A poster on this site pointed this out to me on another site.

I found it had an interesting perspective on things.

[DaShi]

Have you?

Have you?

[DaShi]

A poster on this site pointed this out to me on another site.

I found it had an interesting perspective on things.

How so? Please enlighten us on to the illuminating insights you've gained.

[DinoDoc]

Have you?

Have you?

[kentonio]

HAS ANYONE, ANYWHERE ACTUALLY READ THIS MOTHER****ING BOOK?!?!!

[DaShi]

Of course not, which makes us all experts on it.

[The Mad Monk]

Now why would we do a silly thing like that?

[Asher]

HAS ANYONE, ANYWHERE ACTUALLY READ THIS MOTHER****ING BOOK?!?!!

It sounds boring as ****. Plus, there's nothing more pointless to this world than essays on figments of imagination and which one is more badass.

[DaShi]

Well, here's the funny thing about "the historical Jesus": everyone who looks for him seems to find that, for some reason, the real, historical Jesus had opinions/beliefs very similar to the person looking for him. Scholars of a hard-economic-left persuasion find that he was a hardcore agitator for the impoverished; feminists discover a feminist; your real radicals find a violent Jewish-nationalist revolutionary; presumptively queer theorists find a whole lot of heretofore unknown information about "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

This is what happens when your primary sources for a person are a limited set of religious texts (from various religious traditions you don't believe in): in order to find the "real person" who was ostensibly obscured by mysticism and later accretions, you have to resort to ridiculously tenuous guesswork and hazy assumptions, putting extra weight on some parts of some gospels while minimizing other parts of other gospels. All without any particularly strong grounds for making such a call in any given direction. The inevitable result is a "historical Jesus" that says more about the historian than about the actual Jesus of Nazareth.

Whoever the "historical Jesus" was, he's gone know. All that's left is Jesus Christ, the incarnate God. And, since Jesus Christ is the one who gets the actual worship--the subject of real interest for the vast majority of interested parties--why bother digging? Jesus Christ founded the biggest religion on earth. The Historical Jesus is nobody.

This is a fairly generic critique that can be applied to nearly any historical study. Bias is an easy cavil to toss around, which is why Fox News did it, because it is so difficult to prove and disprove. This is why most scholars heavily cite their works, which is no panacea to the bias criticism. Unfortunately, it requires other scholars to truly evaluate the merits of such work, but no one else has the same time and tenacity as the author of the subject in question.

Anyway, my point is that you can't simply dismiss a historical study, especially with the credentials of an author like, with the mere specter of bias. You're free to disagree with it, but your opinion would hold more merit, if it was based on something more substantial than all historians are biased.

[Berzerker]

I saw him on Bill Maher and he said something to the effect that Jesus wasn't exactly all that peaceful (turn the other cheek) cuz he also said he's bringing a sword (?)

I believe Jesus was referencing his message, not himself. The sword will be the conflict his teachings creates with other belief systems, even causing strife within families.

[Dinner]

Saw that.

Sweet monkey tap dancing Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

Yet typical of the bull**** Fox News attempts to pass off as real journalism. Worse, Fox employees have to attempt to do hit pieces like this or they get fired as numerous Fox insiders have admitted over the years. That's just what happens when a political party runs a propaganda outlet and that's all Fox is and that's what it was founded to be.

[Hauldren Collider]

Have you?

I think I'd rather have my toenails removed with pliers. This whole interview seems to be a case of who's the biggest dumbass. It's a pissing match about religions, there can be no winners.

Also if we're gonna give a **** about what individual fox reporters did, does anyone remember the coverage of the boston bombing? Fox news was practically the only station that said things that even approximated accuracy. CNN was a ****ing ****show

[Alexander's Horse]

By Fox standards, she was polite, he did very well, thanks Asher, enjoyed that