As soon as I heard Aslan trying to define an alternative to 'genuine history', I just had to tune out. What other history should we be interested in? Or what other evidence or facts should we allow for other than genuine ones? I really don't have time for things that aren't genuine. He's almost flaunting the idea of the sacred not being genuine, and frankly I both agree with him and would put it to him that that is an argument AGAINST the sacred.
aslan seems to think that over enunciation is a sufficient rebuttal. sam gives solid,deductive, logical responses where as reza tries to muddy the water by explaining faith, belief, fanaticism and the role religion plays especially in the middle east through the scope of social context .
So... if religion is all about interpretation do religion people have to believe in God? Sam's point that a given statement is either true or its not is crucial.
The opening quote from Aslan is typical Theological bullshit: "sacred history" is not the same as factual history and cannot be analysed with crude logic, reason, and evidence; it is impervious to all established laws and hence cannot be criticised. Religion's attempts to justify itself conjure up an image of a shape-shifting schizophrenic who dances around to avoid facing his own sickness.
3:15 - look at sam, you can tell just by looking at him he's thinking "Wow, you'er already full of shit"
DemonHermit 6 months ago
If we take Aslan's idea, Harry Potter can also be scripture.
greenjelly01 9 months ago
2:29 reza is lying. just looked it up. there is no sentence that says "but some interpretations are more reasonable than others".
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 1 year ago
Anyone else amused that the Jewish guy's name is Aslan?
sterces48 1 year ago
oh man were in so much trouble...6000 years old? WOW
CyrusMansoorAmir 1 year ago
As soon as I heard Aslan trying to define an alternative to 'genuine history', I just had to tune out. What other history should we be interested in? Or what other evidence or facts should we allow for other than genuine ones? I really don't have time for things that aren't genuine. He's almost flaunting the idea of the sacred not being genuine, and frankly I both agree with him and would put it to him that that is an argument AGAINST the sacred.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago 6
the host is not at all biased...
omnitribeco 2 years ago
aslan seems to think that over enunciation is a sufficient rebuttal. sam gives solid,deductive, logical responses where as reza tries to muddy the water by explaining faith, belief, fanaticism and the role religion plays especially in the middle east through the scope of social context .
thanks for posting.
andyman8300 2 years ago 3
"aslan seems to think that over enunciation is a sufficient rebuttal"
haha this is so true
pp0u50f3 2 years ago 5
So... if religion is all about interpretation do religion people have to believe in God? Sam's point that a given statement is either true or its not is crucial.
stoprainingonme 2 years ago
The opening quote from Aslan is typical Theological bullshit: "sacred history" is not the same as factual history and cannot be analysed with crude logic, reason, and evidence; it is impervious to all established laws and hence cannot be criticised. Religion's attempts to justify itself conjure up an image of a shape-shifting schizophrenic who dances around to avoid facing his own sickness.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 12
hahaha nicely put
PhilosophyAndDoubt 2 years ago