Religious scholar Reza Aslan destroys ‘charlatan’ Joel Osteen: Jesus hated wealth

[cbayer]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/05/religious-scholar-reza-aslan-destroys-charlatan-joel-osteen-jesus-hated-wealth/

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, August 5, 2014 11:57 EDT


Reza Aslan (Screenshot)

Religious scholar Reza Aslan blasted proponents of the so-called “prosperity gospel” last month, claiming the materialistic Christian movement ran directly counter to the teachings of Jesus.

Aslan was speaking at the 2014 Indian Summer Festival in Vancouver about his book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

During a question and answer session, the University of California at Riverside professor was asked about the portrayal of Jesus in movies.

“I love all fictional presentations of Jesus. I think they are fantastic, whether it is the Last Temptation of Christ or The Passion — both of which are fiction. But — sorry about that, did I break that to you? — but again for me what is fascinating about those is it is just a representation of what I have been talking about all along, which is the incredible malleability of the Christ story, the way that it can become whatever you want it to become.”

Aslan said his favorite representation of Jesus was from the 1970 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, and then pivoted to the issue of the prosperity gospel.

more at link

[JDPriestly]

1. Aslan is right about Jesus' condemnation of wealth.

To use a medieval term, the nouveau Christian religion that worships acquiring wealth is actually a heresy. I don't really believe in dogma and heresy and judging other people's beliefs, but if you read the Bible, this whole wealth worship has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings.

I want to read Aslan's book on Jesus the Zealot. Haven't gotten around to it yet. But I will. I read another book on the topic. I think it is a pretty believable theory. I want to see what Aslan turned up in his research.

Very interesting.

[truebluegreen]

12. Fascinating, excellent book. Highly recommend!

Reading it was like taking the picture I had of Jesus and the historical milieu and giving the lens a quarter turn--suddenly everything came into focus. Many things that seemed metaphysical and enigmatic were suddenly concrete, real and understandable. An eye opener.

[JDPriestly]

31. I read a book on the general topic before. Suddenly the New Testament really made sense.

But my father who was a Methodist minister had already suggested that Jesus was a political reformer. The New Testament, especially if you focus on the gospels rather than the letters, becomes more understandable if you view it that way.

I think a couple of the stories about Jesus' life may have been added by the Romans because they could not bear the truth. That is the story of the trial of Jesus. I think that was re-written to let the Romans off the hook and blame the Jews. I don't think it is true. An expert on civil law, on the law of Rome, told me that the trial as described would not have taken place at the time. Further, of course, the immaculate conception may have been borrowed from certain more ancient myths.

People like to believe in magic. But isn't the very existence of the energy of life magical and mysterious enough. Why make up stuff? I don't understand that. It is Jesus' wisdom and teachings that matter.

[truebluegreen]

33. "It is Jesus' wisdom and teachings that matter."

I agree completely. Coming to the story as a history buff I was aware of the Jesus-as-a-social-reformer aspect. I was also aware that the gospels were written long after the events they purport to describe, that the New Testament was codified by men whose motives I suspect (i.e. by men looking to "establish" a religion in a decaying empire*) and then was copied, re-copied, translated, re-translated etc etc etc. IIRC there exist more versions of the New Testament than there are words in it ("Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman).

One thing I really like about Aslan's book is that he thoroughly explains the historical background of Jesus' life, traces the development of the early church/movement (I never could figure out how this new cult made the jump from Jerusalem directly to Rome), points out the origins of some clearly magical and contradictory additions, but takes no position on Jesus' ability as a healer (i.e. things he can't explain he makes no attempt to). This is definitely not the typical Bible-as-history book.




*an empire that had long used religion to bind the disparate regions and people of the Roman Empire together. In the early days they superimposed their own gods on the local ones; later they developed the cult of the Emperor. Needless to say when the Emperor Constantine "converts" but doesn't allow himself to be baptized (until many years later, on his deathbed) it casts doubt on his sincerity.

[JDPriestly]

34. Interesting. Thanks.

[LiberalArkie]

32. My parents told me a long time ago that the Anti-Christ was the opposite of Jesus.

And that the prosperity gospel was anti-Christ. All the hatred and mistrust being preached does not come from Jesus but from the Anti-Christ.

[Brettongarcia]

42. Most Christians feel Jesus and the New Testament, its spirituality, are a revelation. But?

Last edited Thu Aug 7, 2014, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

But as it turns out, there are problems with spirituality in turn.

First 1) If the God of the Old Testament was rather materialistic, if he made the entire physical universe and said it was "good"? Then if Jesus is very, very anti-materialistic, then he is anti-God. (As the Church knew, when it condemned Gnosticism, Marcionism, etc.).

That's a bit of a problem. Since Jesus constantly defers to God in dozens of his sayings. Is Jesus a liar?

Second 2) even the New Testament began to note problems, even in spirituality. Including "false spirits" (1 John 4.1 ff; etc.).

3) Then the apostle James began to note that any spiritual religion that gives us primarily only kind words, sentiments, "spirit," but not the material food we need to live, like literal food, is an evil false religion. One that leaves us literally starving to death. For lack of the material things we need, like material food (James 2.14-26).

At first to be sure, the "spirituality" of the New Testament seems like a revelation; a release from the Old Testament at last. But as it turns out, even liberal, spiritual Christianty, the New Testament, has some very considerable problems on its own.

[trusty elf]

2. That's refreshing to read.

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]

[AngryOldDem]

3. This is how the megachurch charlatans of today have justified their corruption

If Christ came back right now He would probably treat them like He did anyone else who twisted and manipulated the Gospel for their own ends.

[cbayer]

5. I have no doubt he would throw them out of the temple.

[Ilsa]

4. Matthew 19:24

For again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

Repeated in Mark's gospel. Jesus didn't think the wealthy could do the right thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Camels are easy. I'm just not sure it'll be much use as a camel, after it goes through the juicer.

[Ilsa]

19. Yeah, that's a fun one to visualize, even as a kid

in Sunday School. A lot of Old Testament stuff was either subdued in its violence or ignored for the kid, even young teen, levels. I found most of it repulsive. The New Testament, particularly the Gospels, were easier except for the crucifixion story. Christ's words made more sense; they seemed more feminine to me.

[Igel]

21. Read on.

Just a few more verses, that's all.

Was it the wealth that was the issue? And could a rich man be saved?

When you pick cherries, you really have to either take the pits with the fruit or find a pit-free fruit to pick. May I suggest figs, instead?

[Ilsa]

27. My one verse wasn't intended to be

Cherry-picking, but a brief example of what Aslan probably interpreted regarding the difficulties and distractions wealth can bring compared to devotion to spiritualism, "God's work", etc. My comment was poorly stated.

The verses beyond 24 bring plenty of food for thought including the paradoxical first/last last/first statement. Plenty of sermon material there.

[TheMick]

6. To be factual......

.......I rather doubt that Jesus 'hated' anything, as hate is something that seems to be entirely a creation of human beings.
Instead, I belueve that Jesus would have wanted the rich.....and everyone else for that matter.....to donate to charity. This
is sonething I have personally always tried to do.

[cbayer]

7. Welcome to DU and the to religion group, TheMick.

I think what you say about charity is pretty clear in much of the writings about Jesus. Joel Osteen, of course, is not about charity at all, unless one considers giving your money to him charity, lol.

[TheMick]

10. If people want to......

....donate to churches, they should make sure it is going to good works.
Personally, I doznate to Wounded Warriors, St Judes Hospital, The Christopher Reeve Foundation, etc.
I do NOT donate to political candidates, as I do not trust them.

[cbayer]

11. I also individualize my donations and look carefully at who I am donating to.

I do donate to political candidates, but I am very ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I know that they must have money if they have any hope of winning. On the other hand, I am disgusted by how much money they must have and how much of their energy it demands.

[Justice]

8. All that wealth interferes with or blocks us from having a relationship with God

In a sense, you are bulky and weighted down, and thus it is difficult to pass through the eye of a needle.

Jesus wasn't saying if you are rich donate to charity -- he was saying something far more dramatic -- like shed your wealth if you want to more easily enter the Kingdom of God.

No offense to you TheMick, but I think the Republican mantra is wealth is good, wealth shows character and hard work - the lack of wealth shows laziness and bad character, poor choices. The mantra continues, that somehow if you donate some of that wealth, you are wonderful and that will bring you closer to God. If material wealth mattered to God, you would be able to take it with you when you die.

My own view is that those that go through this life with very little in terms of material wealth will be at the front of the and the top of the pile in the next life.

[Igel]

26. Neither side has clean hands in this.

The left tends to point out that "blessed are the poor," then they want to do things to make the poor not be poor.

"Hi, I'm a progressive Xian. You're blessed while you're poor. Let me help you out of that problem. See ... Now you're middle class, no more unsightly blessing to worry about. No you have excessive wealth, so I've gotten you to go from blessed to judged. No, no, don't bother to thank me."

If people really believed the poor were blessed, they'd want to make everybody poor, wouldn't they? No, they still believe that gold is God, just gold in moderation.

If people really believed the righteous were blessed, there'd be discussions about what Jesus meant by "righteous" and how that definition should be used today. Just like with "gold is God", you want gold in moderation but you also want God in moderation. Too much of a good thing gets in the way of all the bad things we like.

If people really believed peacemakers were blessed, there wouldn't be militant, antagonistic sermons from progressive preachers. "That fighting you're doing ... You need to stop it, now. Be a peacemaker!" That would make some congregants clutch their pacemakers. You can, apparently, have too much peace. Best to preach rage at those the congregation are mad at. If you like the moderate gold that preaching God in moderation to your congregation gets you.


Kids like pokemon, "pocket monsters." Most Xians like their "pokeji", "pocket Jesus". They have pokeji cards that contain specific Verse Powers and use them to play against others with their set of verse cards. Sort of a verses versus verses battle.

[Brettongarcia]

38. Yes. People think of Jesus as wholly"spiritual." But 1) liberals want material things for the poor.

Arguably, they don't want excessive material things; "riches." And 2) you might think that Jesus was entirely "spiritual," and not materialistic. But don't forget that Jesus is pictured working a dozen real physical, material miracles. Including raising physically dead people to physical life again.

And in a sense the supreme article of physical richness is ... more physical life. Being raised from the physically dead, back to physical life. Ecclesiastes and other sources noted that being physically alive, is the necessary precondition needed to enjoy all physical wealth. And so what after all is the supreme physical wonder to possess? It is to be resurrected physically, say. And Jesus was said to do that.

In fact, 3) the New testament said that a religion that is wholly spiritual, that gives us only kind words and sentiments, but not the physical material things we need in life to physically live, is an evil false religion (James 2.14-26).

In fact for that matter, arguably there is still an element of even a kind of Greed in the New Testament; Nietzsche said that Christians are after all, greedy for eternal life; greedy for heaven. For some kind of form of never dying. And 4) it seems, our spiritual-seeming Heaven in turn is supposed to come down, to be a physical material place here on this physical earth (Rev. 21; Isa. 65 ff).

Reza Aslan, who is he? That Iranian guy who teaches creative writing? He seems to have gotten a bit of stereotyped Christian, liberal, "spiritual" Christianity as an MA at Harvard Divinity School. But not enough to really understand. Don't forget, he teaches fiction, Creative Writing.

Granted, Joe Osteen - the undergraduate Marketing major - has problems on his own. But? "All have sinned." Even our very spiritual Christians. Even Reza Aslan, no doubt. His support for Hamas raises at least some eyebrows too.

[okasha]

73. Well, Aslan certainly has better credentials

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 01:00 AM - Edit history (1)

than "Woodbridge Stonebutt, Ph.D." or whatever you call your nom de keyboard.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Idunno, he got pretty pissed off at the moneychangers at the temple.

[Brettongarcia]

43. But then he delivered big physical goods: physical resurrection it seems

[Ilsa]

20. I tend to give to specifics as well...

Specific church offerings, fundraisers for specific causes.

[Igel]

23. I suspected Jesus hated quite a few things.

People, not so much.

He was much more forgiving of people than many Xians. He was fairly forgiving of an occupying, oppressive army, for instance. He was forgiving of people that hated him. He was saddened by the young rich man's love for his wealth, but still optimistic.

He rather hated hypocrisy. Those who said how others should live--helping others, being righteous, loving God--but didn't think the same rules applied to them. I think he hated the hypocrisy, was angry at the wrongs done by the hypocritical, but was saddened by their ignorance.

[DeSwiss]

9. Joel probably thinks....

...what He was saying was only ''metaphorical,'' right? I mean, He was a carpenter, okay? Why use three nails when two would do? Times are tight all over, for God's sake!

- You know how fundamentalists just loves them some symbolism and the poetry of language. They only interpret the bible strictly when it has to do with the naughty bits.

K&R

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. +infinity. nt

[intaglio]

13. Shame about the Parable of the Talents/Minas

Matthew 25:14-30
Luke 19:12-27

Investing is good! Vindictive bosses are righteous!

[edhopper]

14. What the hell is that

I have not read those parables. What a horrible story, what are they trying to say. It seems a endorsement of the wealthy and an attack on the poor.

If the King is suppose to be Jesus or God, he is a big dick, as bad as the OT God.

[intaglio]

15. I agree entirely

You can quote the Bible to prove nearly anything. I have even heard "Prosperity Gospel" proponents take the "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25) and say that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate into Jerusalem; so what this quote really means is that a wealthy man has to stick to the straight and narrow path of salvation not that it was impossible for him to enter.

[edhopper]

18. Do you know what the general

interpretation of that parable is, cause I think it's a screwy tale.

[intaglio]

24. I think the general modern interpretation is that

You can have goods but you have to be open to giving them up for God.

I'm sure others here would have different ways of looking at it.

[DonCoquixote]

61. the one I heard was

The guy that would not invest his talents was too afraid to do so. Because he knew Life was not fair, he played it safe, and did nothing. When I was in High school, the teacher made a pun on the "talents" that were the money measurement, but then expanded it to "talents" people have, the idea that some people waste their lives because they are afraid of losing.

Of course, my thought was and is, how nice would the King have been if the servant invested and lost?

[edhopper]

62. Sounds like a stretch

another attempt to turn another inane or mean thing in the Bible to something good using convoluted thinking.

[DonCoquixote]

63. I am just telling you what I heard, since you asked

I could even see the idea that it is a dangerous thing to be so afraid of unfairness that you wind up doing nothing, but as I said, it was not complete by any stretch.

[edhopper]

65. I know

and i appreciate the response. i wasn't arguing with you.
Just thinking about what they taught you.

Teaching by parable must be the least efficient method there is.

[DonCoquixote]

68. maybe, but

Sometimes it is what works. I can appreciate the fact that we are trying to rely less on it than in time past, but sometimes, we need a metaphor. Key thing is, religion cannot admit it is a metaphor.

[bluesbassman]

70. One interpretation I heard regarding this verse had to do with the gate's construction...

Apparently the gate into Jerusalem at that time had a rather low arch over it (in addition to being narrow, hence the term "eye of the needle&quot . So a wealthy man riding a heavily laden camel entering the city would be required to bow low in order to not strike his head on the gate's lintel. As a rich man entering the city would have many eyes on him, the idea of lowering his head would indicate subjugation and his belief in the grandiosity of his wealth would make that a distasteful proposition. Jesus' remark was not necessarily condemning the concept of wealth, but rather the effect it can have on one's perception of they are.

[okasha]

22. Simple.

God gives you gifts. Use 'em or lose 'em.

[edhopper]

35. Okay

is the moral also that God can be a real asshole? Cause the last servant says he was so afraid of the King that he did nothing in fear of losing the one minas. He also says the King reaps what he does not sow, so is God a Robber Baron in this tale. Or a thief?
Not so simple.

[okasha]

37. No. Go back to the text.

The employer represents the Kingdom of Heaven. The first two servants use what they have been given to work for that Kingdom, which is to be a regenerated earth where peace and justice are available to all. The third servant says, in effect, that he just couldn't bear to take a risk for the sake of such a world-- so he's tacitly supported the status quo of injustice, violence and oppression. He consequently loses his chance to enter the Kingdom.

[edhopper]

39. I don't see it that way

Sounds to me like the Employer's a dick. What happened to forgiveness.
As parables go, this one is pretty lame.
Christians can take it for what they want, to me it's just another place where the Bible can't be taken seriously.

[okasha]

40. Whatever.

But the comparison of the employer to the Kingdom of Heaven is explicit--there's no textual justification for identifying him as God or Jesus.

[Brettongarcia]

45. You see no connection between Jesus, or God, and the Kingdom of Heaven?

[Ilsa]

25. What I was taught about this parable was to ignore the

Literal-ness of it. I was taught that the money represents the gifts and talents God gives us, whether it is wealth or long life or knowledge and whether we have put it to good use during our time on earth.

[intaglio]

28. I didn't say it could be interpreted in other ways

It's just that selecting a non-literal meaning leave the entire Bible open to non-literal meaning. The end result of that is that Jesus didn't literally die for you ...

[Ilsa]

29. I see your point. But

SS teachers would say they teach that parables are not literal, but the rest of the stories frequently are to be taken literally.

There is so much garbage in the Bible that I ignore most of it and try to take Christ's words as reflecting the kindest, most peaceful option. Once again, someone else would likely not agree. Hence, arguments, disagreements, hatred, and war.

[okasha]

36. It's a pretty fair bet that when a Gospel says,

"He taught them in parables," the stories are not meant to be taken literally, given that a parable is by definition an analogy. It's also a fair bet that when a parable starts off with "The Kingdom of Heaven is like...." what follows is going to be figurative language. In these instances, the text itself tells you how to read it.

[intaglio]

41. Parable - a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson

So what moral or spiritual lesson is being taught by saying that someone who does exactly as you said is going to be punished? What happens to the servant who invests money and looses it? In the much apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews the servant returning 5 talents actually wasted the money on women and song and it is he who is cast out - not the unadventurous servant.

Now the next point is that a parable does not have to be an allegory, metaphor or analogy the story can be literally true as long as it is illustrative. Oddly the Luke version of the story may well be a metaphor for a real event, the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome.

[okasha]

46. In the Greek of the NT,

"parabole" means "comparison" or "analogy." In Matthew, the parable of the talents occurs within a series of parables about who will or will not be prepared for the coming of the Kingdom of God, and who will or will not enter "into the joy of your Lord." Those who enter the Kingdom will be those who are prepared for it and those who have actively worked to bring about a better world. In this case, they are the two servants who have multiplied the value of the "talents" entrusted to them. The third servant, on the other hand, has chosen caution--to do no more than cover his butt. (In Luke, he actually disobeys a direct order to carry on his employer's business in his absence.) His only concern has been for himself.


It's not clear why Luke would attach an allusion to Archelaus to this parable, given that contemporary Jews and the early Christians despised all the Herods, solo and chorus.

[Brettongarcia]

47. The Herods themselves were considered Jewish. Many Hellenized Jews followed them, as their ruler.

Furthermore it is interesting that the Bible chose to not only compare employers to God - but also in effect, God to an employer. Analogies to some extent, work both ways. Surely no one would use an employer, to serve as a figure or symbol for God, if employers were utterly despised.

So in effect, when employers are being likened to God, God is also being called Our Employer. Encouraging us to make lots of money in his name. Though the New Testament is generally less concerned with material prosperity than the Old, Jesus and Christianity still claims total loyalty to the Old Testament God. And so elements of the New, had to make an occasional allusion to that God, and to the prosperity gospel. To the God that promised us "riches." And these parables served that purpose.

Another related parable, one confirming this linkage between God and employers, would be the one about the ungrateful tenants, vs. the landowner. And - significantly - his mistreated "son." ("A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants... They cast him out of the vineyard and killed him" Luke 20.9 ff).

[intaglio]

48. I repeat I am not saying that your particular interpretation is "wrong"

Just that there are many ways of interpreting it, and yours is only one of those many ways; in essence you are claiming that you and your teachers are correct and that all other interpretations and schools of thought are wrong. This emphasises a problem of teaching in parables especially as parable could use real events (the point behind my comment about Herod Archelaus) just as hyperbole can use to real events to magnify a story. This is made clear by the Parable of the Tares where in Matthew 13:36 the disciples have to ask for it to be explained.

Next you highlight the series into which this parable falls but ignores another the big problem, that the ordering and collection of such tales fell not to Jesus, nor to any of the apostles but to the anonymous authors of the Gospels and the later Church fathers who edited the book. These recollections and subsequent collections of the Christian story happened many years after the supposed events in Judea.

[edhopper]

49. I am reminded of the episode of

Star Trek / The Next Generation where they meet a species that only talks in metaphor. the problem is that without the social context, there is no way to know what the meaning is.

"Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra."

"Shaka, when the walls fell."

If we don't know if Mathew or Luke was referring to God, or Jesus or Herod or someone else, we can't say what the meaning of the parable is, only interpret it however we want.
For a book inspired and or written by God, seems a poor way to communicate.

[edhopper]

44. Sure

They would have to make a nice moral out of a story where the main character is a dick and the servant that is victimized tells the truth to power and is punished for it.
But basing morality on half told vague tales seems foolish.

[Texprof]

50. Real charlatan is Reza Aslan

The real charlatan is Reza Aslan, the Hollywood resident and new media junkie who uses his credentials to get on every talk show imaginable. However, as an academic, I could not not hire him to teach in the disciplines in which he claims to be an authority. He has a B.S. in Religious Studies (useless), an M.A. in Literature from Iowa and an MTS from Harvard, which is an interesting dabbler program that allows one to focus on personal interests. However, his Ph.D. is in Sociology and his dissertation is on Global Jihadism. Yet on the talk shows he's regularly considered (by hosts who know zero about academic qualifications) to be an expert on Jesus and the New Testament. I'm all for dialogue and serious religious debate, but this guy masquerading as a scholar of the New Testament is poorly qualified to call others charlatans when he has not come clean on his own credentials.

[cbayer]

51. Hello Texprof and welcome to DU.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I know that Aslan is getting a lot of heat these days, but I think the attacks on his credentials are unfounded.

I think a Masters in Theological Studies from Harvard and a PhD in Sociology with the focus of religion are pretty good credentials and I've never seen anything that would indicate that he has "not come clean" regarding them.

He has also been an professor of Islamic Studies, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Drew University Center on Religion, Culture & Conflict, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as other appointments.

His career has focused mostly on writing and his being in the media limelight is not really surprising.

It's too bad that you couldn't hire him, because I think he would be a great person to take a course with, but he most likely hasn't applied for any positions that you might have available.

I find most of what he writes to be very thoughtful and well documented.

Edited to correct: His PhD is in the Sociology of Religions and appears to come from the Religion Department at UCSB.

[Goblinmonger]

52. One does not get a PhD with a focus on religion

that is WAY too broad of a topic. His focus is on Jihadism. Which means he likely studied very little about the New Testament.

[cbayer]

53. His PhD is specifically in "The Sociology of Religions"

If you look at the UCSB site, it actually looks like this degree is granted by the Religion department and not by the sociology department.

There may be things that one can legitimately criticize about Aslan, but criticizing his academic credentials is the stuff of FOX news, imo.

[Goblinmonger]

57. All I'm saying is that claiming that one is an expert in all religions

because one got a PhD in Religion and from a Religion department is being completely ignorant and/or naive of what a PhD actually is. He has a PhD in Religion from a fine institution. That does not mean I need to see him as an expert in all matters of religion. He has an area of specialty. He probably know a great deal about religion. Undoubtedly more than I. But it's like saying someone is an expert in the powers of the POTUS when they have a PhD in Political Science and did their research on welfare administration.

[cbayer]

58. When has he said he was an expert in all religions?

You don't have to see him as anything if you choose not to. I do find him to have a deal of expertise in certain matters concerning religion. And, frankly, he's got a lot more academic credentials in that area than some of the other people who talk about religion non-stop and who are currently attacking him.

Criticizing his position or his analysis is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but what this new member did was attack his academic credentials, going so far as to say he wouldn't hire him. It was that that I objected to.

[Goblinmonger]

60. From my understanding, Christianity was not his area of study.

I could be wrong. Which would mean that isn't his area of expertise.

[cbayer]

64. Are you referring to his book on Jesus?

You do realize that FOX news leveled the same attack on him, right? One of their hosts questioned his credentials and asked why or how a Muslim could write a book about Jesus.

This was his response:

“Because it’s my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually.”

You very well could be wrong. I know he has been presented some pretty strident opposition to some people's heroes, but attacking him on this level is someplace you might not want to go.

[Goblinmonger]

66. OK, that's not the same attack.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't give two shits if he's a Muslim. I also said "according to my understanding." Perhaps his research is in the New Testament and I'm wrong. I'm OK with that. I don't need a "you're a racist like Fox News" leveled at me. I was having a discussion about his area of research for his PhD not a discussion of how a Muslim can be an expert on Christianity.

Discussion research areas is not even in the same ballpark as the racism of Fox.

I see many people that jump into the media circus and say they are experts on Communication and when I look into their degree and research area, they are clearly in over their heads in what they are talking to the media about. I don't know if this is the case here, but my only point has been that getting a PhD in religion does not automatically make you an expert on all religions. If I'm wrong and he did his research on Christianity, then I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. I'm OK admitting that.

ETA: I'm wrong. I have read a couple things from his dissertation advisor that say his claim of credentials in the New Testament are in line with his course of study

[cbayer]

67. I'm not calling you a racist at all, just informing you that

the position you are taking has a familiar ring and that you might want to clarify what you are saying.

So, are you saying that if one hasn't written a dissertation on the New Testament, they are not qualified to speak about it? Even if they hold Bachelor, Master and Doctoral Degrees in Religion?

I'm hard pressed to see who else would be considered to have more expertise.

And this is a two edged sword, because, as I pointed out, many of the pontificators on all things religious have zero academic qualifications to do so. They haven't even taken a course, let alone written a dissertation. Are you looking at their degrees and research areas? Do degrees in neuroscience and zoology make someone an expert on religion?

[Leontius]

69. Former Sec. of State Rice also has a PhD.

That should tell you something about the value and quality of some PhD's.

[cbayer]

71. What ever you may thing about Dr. Rice's politics, she is extremely

bright and well educated.

While I agree that some PhD's aren't worth the paper they are printed on, she is probably not your best example.

[Leontius]

72. I'm sorry I missed the rest of your post because I fell out of my chair at "bright".

[edhopper]

54. he takes too many of the stories in the NT as if they happened

while dismissing others that don't fit his scenario.

He also excuses much of the dark history of Mohammed.

[cbayer]

55. And one can disagree with his POV on those things, but

that has nothing to do with his academic credentials, imo.

[edhopper]

56. Agree

I don't think that is where the problems lay.
He's credentials are sufficient in the area.

[The Magistrate]

59. Compared To Joel Osteen, Sir, Our Cat Is an Expert On Sound Christian Doctrine

A kitchen table knows enough about the subject to effectively cast a prosperity gospel pimp as a charlatan, what in the early days was known as a Christ-monger.